Bug 57374 – Broken smb.conf during samba shares update

Bug 57374 - Broken smb.conf during samba shares update


Summary:	Broken smb.conf during samba shares update

Status:	NEW

Product:	UCS
Classification:	Unclassified
Component:	Samba4
Version:	UCS 5.0
Hardware:	Other Linux

Importance:	P5 normal (vote)
Target Milestone:	---
Assigned To:	Samba maintainers
QA Contact:	Samba maintainers

URL:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2024-06-03 14:11 CEST by Jürn Brodersen
Modified:	2024-06-03 14:12 CEST (History)
CC List:	0 users

See Also:	57367
What kind of report is it?:	Bug Report
What type of bug is this?:	4: Minor Usability: Impairs usability in secondary scenarios
Who will be affected by this bug?:	1: Will affect a very few installed domains
How will those affected feel about the bug?:	2: A Pain – users won’t like this once they notice it
User Pain:	0.046
Enterprise Customer affected?:
School Customer affected?:
ISV affected?:
Waiting Support:
Flags outvoted (downgraded) after PO Review:
Ticket number:
Bug group (optional):
Max CVSS v3 score:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Jürn Brodersen

2024-06-03 14:11:24 CEST

Broken smb.conf during samba shares update.

Found by Stefan: https://forge.univention.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57367#c0

The share configuration is deleted here:
https://git.knut.univention.de/univention/ucs/-/blob/5.0-7/services/univention-samba4/samba-shares.py?ref_type=heads#L137
and later rewritten here:
https://git.knut.univention.de/univention/ucs/-/blob/5.0-7/services/univention-samba4/samba-shares.py?ref_type=heads#L168

During that time frame, the include in shares.conf points to a non existing file and the following code fails:
```
>>> from samba.param import LoadParm
>>> lp = LoadParm()
>>> lp.load_default()
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
RuntimeError: Unable to load default file
```


I expect that time frame to be very short, so it might not be the reason for bug 57367. Though I think it still makes sense to fix this just to make sure it is not the problem.