I appreciate that you have verified what I am experiencing. I also have no idea what is causing it, but it is absolutely a wrench in my workflows. The developer for Total Commander was good in trying to sort this out but didn't get anywhere as Ubuntu wasn't showing an error. Their contact is on the app's page - maybe they would be helpful and you could give an extended trial or basic license for unraid if they wanted to try installing it in place of ubuntu?

2 hours ago, aqua said:

The developer for Total Commander was good in trying to sort this out but didn't get anywhere as Ubuntu wasn't showing an error.

Ideally they should have been testing it against Slackware as that is what Unraid is based on.   However I agree that if they could test it against Unraid itself that would be better as that would be the only way to eliminate as many variables as possible.

17 hours ago, aqua said:

I appreciate that you have verified what I am experiencing. I also have no idea what is causing it, but it is absolutely a wrench in my workflows. The developer for Total Commander was good in trying to sort this out but didn't get anywhere as Ubuntu wasn't showing an error. Their contact is on the app's page - maybe they would be helpful and you could give an extended trial or basic license for unraid if they wanted to try installing it in place of ubuntu?

Did you try with ubuntu?  If so, please post output of

testparm -sv

from the ubuntu install that works.

9 minutes ago, limetech said:

Did you try with ubuntu?  If so, please post output of

testparm -sv

from the ubuntu install that works.

I have not and do not have the ability to do so (it was the developer of the Total Commander app - I emailed several app developers trying to sort this out and they have been the only one that responded). I've asked if they can share that file or join this thread here.

Edited October 22, 20223 yr by aqua

On 10/22/2022 at 9:59 AM, limetech said:

Did you try with ubuntu?  If so, please post output of

testparm -sv

from the ubuntu install that works.

As mentioned, I emailed the Total Commander app developer this request and he responded with the following and the two attachments:

 

Quote

Thanks for the link to the thread, very interesting. Attached is the output of

testparm -sv >testparameters.txt

Maybe you can forward what I did: I compiled the Samba server with standard parameters with

tar -zxf samba-4.17.0.tar-gz

cd samba-4.17.0

./configure

make -j 2

sudo make install

Then I created a very simple smb.conf (see attachment).

Created directory /srv/samba/demo

Added user, group and set permissions:

smbpasswd -a cghisler

sudo groupadd smbuser

sudo usermod -a -G smbuser cghisler

sudo chown :smbuser /srv/samba/demo

sudo chmod 770 /srv/samba/demo

Rebooted and then started the server manually with:

sudo /usr/local/samba/sbin/smbd -D

 

So maybe it is a permissions issue? Here it works when either the folder has chmod 777, or the folder has chmod 770, the group is smbuser, and the user is part of that group.

 

smb.conf testparameters.txt

@limetechIs there anything else I can provide or do to assist in resolving this? I haven't heard back since providing the information in my last post.

I am having the exact same problem.  Individual files result in an error (yet still delete) but directories or selections with multiple files simply fail as "access denied."

 

Have removed shares and readded .... Created new users. Triple checked permissions. Tried public vs secure but it's all the same result when browsing SMB on Android. Super weird.

 

 

I think this is a samba issue and is related to the file managers that are failing using gvfs as the library to access.

 

Plenty of bug reports related to this for version 4.17.0 but supposedly resolved with 4.17.2 (although obviously still some issues.)

 

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15195

 

https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gvfs/-/issues/649

 

I do not believe there is a utility in unRAID to downgrade a specific package?

 

Further investigation of logs makes this look even more likely: 

 

Nov 16 02:43:00 Hippo  smbd[1668]: [2022/11/16 02:43:00.249990,  0] ../../source3/smbd/server.c:1741(main)
Nov 16 02:43:00 Hippo  smbd[1668]:   smbd version 4.17.2 started.
Nov 16 02:43:00 Hippo  smbd[1668]:   Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2022
Nov 16 02:43:00 Hippo  nmbd[1673]: [2022/11/16 02:43:00.283325,  0] ../../source3/nmbd/nmbd.c:901(main)
Nov 16 02:43:00 Hippo  nmbd[1673]:   nmbd version 4.17.2 started.
Nov 16 02:43:00 Hippo  nmbd[1673]:   Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2022
...
Nov 17 00:15:38 Hippo  smbd[22786]: [2022/11/17 00:15:38.152578,  2] ../../source3/smbd/open.c:1678(open_file)
Nov 17 00:15:38 Hippo  smbd[22786]:   admin opened file SERVER/FOO/file.mkv read=No write=No (numopen=2)
Nov 17 00:15:38 Hippo  smbd[22786]: [2022/11/17 00:15:38.167282,  3] ../../source3/smbd/smb2_trans2.c:6834(smbd_do_setfilepathinfo)
Nov 17 00:15:38 Hippo  smbd[22786]:   smbd_do_setfilepathinfo: file SERVER/FOO/file.mkv (fnum 1321203594) info_level=1013 totdata=1
Nov 17 00:15:38 Hippo  smbd[22786]: [2022/11/17 00:15:38.175453,  2] ../../source3/smbd/close.c:830(close_normal_file)
Nov 17 00:15:38 Hippo  smbd[22786]:   admin closed file file SERVER/FOO/file.mkv (numopen=0) NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED
Nov 17 00:15:38 Hippo  smbd[22786]:   smbd_smb2_request_error_ex: smbd_smb2_request_error_ex: idx[1] status[NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED] || at ../../source3/smbd/smb2_close.c:111
status[NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED]Nov 17 00:15:38 Hippo  smbd[22786]: [2022/11/17 00:15:38.175530,  3] ../../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:3955(smbd_smb2_request_error_ex)

 

On 11/16/2022 at 8:05 PM, Fffrank said:

I think this is a samba issue and is related to the file managers that are failing using gvfs as the library to access.

 

Plenty of bug reports related to this for version 4.17.0 but supposedly resolved with 4.17.2 (although obviously still some issues.)

 

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15195

 

https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gvfs/-/issues/649

 

I do not believe there is a utility in unRAID to downgrade a specific package?

 

I was hoping that the update to 6.11.4 (and then 6.11.5) which brought an update to Samba 4.17.3 would resolve this, but no luck... 

 

The Total Commander developer, whose app is also having this issue, thought perhaps it is affecting the android apps which use the smbj samba library, which he uses: https://github.com/hierynomus/smbj  That said, I don't know if it is actually the issue or what to do with the information even if it was.

 

I dunno what else I can do at this point. I've also tried a ton of things. I followed up with the developer of my favourite explorer app who never responded before, but I'm not holding my breath...

14 minutes ago, aqua said:

I was hoping that the update to 6.11.4 (and then 6.11.5) which brought an update to Samba 4.17.3 would resolve this, but no luck... 

 

The Total Commander developer, whose app is also having this issue, thought perhaps it is affecting the android apps which use the smbj samba library, which he uses: https://github.com/hierynomus/smbj  That said, I don't know if it is actually the issue or what to do with the information even if it was.

 

I dunno what else I can do at this point. I've also tried a ton of things. I followed up with the developer of my favourite explorer app who never responded before, but I'm not holding my breath...

 

I believe it's a samba bug and I have opened a new bug report with them to look into it.  https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15247

6 minutes ago, Fffrank said:

 

I believe it's a samba bug and I have opened a new bug report with them to look into it.  https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15247

Appreciate you helping drive this forward. It is so annoying if you try to delete a folder with files too - it just deletes a single file in the folder at a time... This is killing me. The file managers that I most want to use as they have multiple tabs/windows don't work (like Solid, MiX) - only a few that are one-window do (like file manager+).

 

If you need any support in terms of tests or whatever I will help, and would hope others in this thread (including the unraid folks) would help also. Just let me know.

Edited November 22, 20223 yr by aqua

Samba support say this is a mis-configuration or problem with how Unraid has compiled the image.  I'm not sure who we can tag here? 

On 12/8/2022 at 9:52 AM, Fffrank said:

Samba support say this is a mis-configuration or problem with how Unraid has compiled the image.  I'm not sure who we can tag here? 

I'm going to tag the admins that are following this: @limetech and @ljm42 Can one of you please have someone review the discussion in that Samba support thread and then proceed from there?

Hi folks, any news on this issue?

I refrained from updating to 6.11.x for a bit (my server was on 6.10.3), but after the update to 6.11.5 I've been experiencing the very same issue described above.

After rolling back to 6.10.3 the issue went away.

 

It's been over two weeks since the last post, could somebody please give us a heads up?

Thanks

On 12/27/2022 at 7:43 AM, v3n0m said:

Hi folks, any news on this issue?

I refrained from updating to 6.11.x for a bit (my server was on 6.10.3), but after the update to 6.11.5 I've been experiencing the very same issue described above.

After rolling back to 6.10.3 the issue went away.

 

It's been over two weeks since the last post, could somebody please give us a heads up?

Thanks

Still an issue for me on 6.11.5 and still no response from the unraid crew, despite @Fffrank putting it a bunch of effort with Samba.

Edited January 4, 20233 yr by aqua

And another 3 weeks later still not as much as a reply, nothing.

Could somebody atleast give us an update? 

@limetech is this issue on the radar for future updates?

Thanks in advance

@ljm42 @limetech Can we please get an update on this? The ongoing silence (3+ months) despite requests for updates seems to be screaming that it isn't something that is cared about which would be incredibly disappointing and frustrating but I'd love for someone to officially state otherwise.

We don't have a solution yet, but there is a work around. Depending on how many disks your files are spread across this may or may not be viable.

 

Go to Settings -> Global Share Settings and set Enable Disk Shares to Yes.  Then go to Shares -> Disk Shares -> diskX and set permissions so only you can access them.

 

Then connect directly to the diskX share(s) and delete files that way, there will not be a warning.

 

But please... NEVER EVER copy/move files between a user share and a disk share.  Always go user share to user share or disk share to disk share. If you mix and match it is very easy to make a mistake and overwrite a file with itself, which results in a zero byte file. This is why disk shares are disabled by default.

 

...

The fact that this only affects deletions from user shares is a good hint to us about where the bug is, but we don't have it solved yet.  The bulk of development efforts are currently focused on ZFS so I would not bet on this being fixed in the first release of 6.12

Adding another data point - I'm seeing this as well. It's disheartening that this isn't prioritized for 6.12 at all

I've also been dealing with this issue for months now. Is there an update on this issue being resolved or looked at?

 

Thanks

Second that, this issue has been around for about a year now, and although it might be an edge case, I'm really disappointed to see absolutely no response from the devs since February, when a somewhat risky workaround was suggested.

 

@limetech please, can you folks give us an update and preferably a fix for this issue? It still prevents me from updating from 6.10 to 6.12.4 by now, the version gap is getting bigger than I'd like.

Thanks

Hi all, a nobody here but thought I'd help dive in because it's just as frustrating to me too...

So a quick recap for new and old returning members....

 

- Solid Explorer (and many other android file explorers) receive a permission denied error when attempting to delete a file/folder from an SMB share in recent versions of Unraid. The delete still occurs (as evident by refreshing the page), but an Access Denied error is still received by the client.

- CX File Explorer is one of few apps that can delete and does not show any error. Suspect that it simply does a better job at handling the crap sent from Unraid.

- This is not an issue when accessing from windows or Linux systems.

- This is not a Samba issue.

- Although Solid Explorer could deal with the error better, the root cause is with Unraid.

 

 

So far, I've tried to just verify and replicate findings from others... here is said info:

Unraid Version: 6.12.4

Samba Version: 4.17.10

Solid Explorer Version: 2.8.35

 

I set up SMB for a new share and connected via CX and Solid Explorer. I could successfully create and delete items in the share using CX without issues. I clearly experienced the subject symptoms when working with Solid Explorer... created a file fine, denied to delete it, refreshed and saw it was removed.

 

I then set up a Fedora 37 VM and installed the same version of Samba (4.17.10) and followed the instructions here for configuration:

https://techviewleo.com/install-configure-samba-share-on-fedora/

 

I then repeated the test actions with Solid Explorer after connecting to the new Fedora SMB share, and it worked perfectly... as expected after hearing Samba on other systems works fine. So we can safely say this is an Unraid issue.

 

In terms of configuration differences... I noted I HAD to add the share folder in fedora to "samba_share_t" in SELinux. Without doing so, I had no access to the share. Unraid/slackware don't seem to have SELinux.

I also found some differences in the smb.conf stuff, but after making changes to it in Fedora, you call "systemctl restart smb" to allow the changes to take effect. The command is not valid in Unraid and so the only way I thought of "restarting" smb in Unraid was to stop the array, turn off smb, turn on smb, start the array... this however simply reverted any and all changes made to smb.conf and smb-shares.conf on Unraid, so I don't know how to verify if any changes there will work.

 

Lastly, I haven't yet looked into the firewall configuration in Unraid as that was needed in Fedora to allow access... just something else to rule out.

 

Hopefully there's someone out here now that is willing to work through it with me.

 

 

EDIT:

If someone on an older version of Unraid that doesn't experience the Solid Explorer access issue, could share their /etc/samba/smb.conf and smb-share.conf files, it would be good to directly compare with my files to see if that's where the issue lies.

 

Edited September 19, 20232 yr by BlueBell

29 minutes ago, BlueBell said:

The command is not valid in Unraid and so the only way I thought of "restarting" smb in Unraid was to stop the array, turn off smb, turn on smb, start the array... this however simply reverted any and all changes made to smb.conf and smb-shares.conf on Unraid, so I don't know how to verify if any changes there will work.

If you want changes to stick in Unraid, you have to make them in the      /boot/config/smb-extra.conf   file.   It is called quite late in the smb.conf file, so any changes in that file will update any previous or default samba settings. 

 

The easiest place to edit this file is from      Settings    >>>    SMB     >>>   SMB Extras

 

Since you are playing around with SMB/Samba settings, you might want to have a look at the output  of these Linux Samba commands:

 

smbstatus

testparm

testparm -v

netstat

 

They may also work in Android....

 

EDIT:   I seem to recall that there are some command line commands that can stoop and restart the samba process in Linux.  Google to find them.

Edited September 19, 20232 yr by Frank1940

1 hour ago, Frank1940 said:

EDIT:   I seem to recall that there are some command line commands that can stoop and restart the samba process in Linux.  Google to find them.

/etc/rc.d/rc.samba restart