Re: [Samba] Any danger in having two shares with same name?

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--===============1040803142==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="------------enig92F7DAD14E5A5B9253A4161F"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig92F7DAD14E5A5B9253A4161F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

AndyLiebman@aol.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Don't ask why I'm posing this question -- actually, I WILL explain below --
> but is there any danger in having two shares in Samba with the same name?
>
> Here's our situation. We have a bunch of production machines out in the
> field. On those machines, we are constantly setting up "special project shares" for
> each user (different from the user's Home directory) that refer to private
> directories only accessible by that user. We define those "special project
> shares" in a series of "smb.username.conf" files, where we also define which of
> hundreds of other shares are accessible to that user particular user. The whole
> process of setting up shares is highly automated from the point of view of the
> end user.
>
> By the way, we reference those "smb.username.conf" files in the general
> smb.conf file with the statement:
>
> include = smb.%U.conf
>
> ... so each user sees all the shares listed in their own "smb.username.conf"
> file as well as all the browseable shares listed in the general "smb.conf"
> file.
>
> This arrangement was working perfectly, until we were asked to turn some of
> the systems into Primary Domain Controllers and give hundreds of users roaming
> profiles. Our users now want the "special project share" for each user to be
> automatically mapped as the "P Drive" in Windows whenever a user logs on to a
> client system.
>
> However, we have found that Windows won't process any shares listed in the
> "smb.username.conf" directories while it executes the logon.bat script during
> log on. We know the logon.bat file IS being executed -- it syncs the client time
> with the server time, and it maps any shares we specify in the general
> smb.conf file. But it won't map any shares defined in those smb.username.conf files.
>
> Curiously, if we run the logon.bat file again about 10 seconds after log on
> has completed, it will map the shares listed in the smb.username.conf file!.
>
> As a workaround, we decided to take an alternate approach to defining the
> "special project shares". For each of the "special project shares" (that all
> users have) we put a listing in the general smb.conf file as follows:
>
> [Special Project Share A]
> Comment = Special Folder A
> path = /home/theboss/%U/Special Folder A
> read only = No
> write list = %U
> guest ok = Yes
> create mask = 0775
> directory mask = 0775
>
>
> So now, we have two listings for "Special Project Share A" -- one in the
> user's smb.username.conf file, and one in the general smb.conf file.
>
> The question is, is there any danger of Samba or the Windows workstations
> getting confused? Each of these duplicate shares has the SAME NAME, and refers to
> the EXACT SAME DIRECTORY on the Linux box. And has the same access and
> read/write settings. It's probably the same as if you accidentally created the same
> share twice in your smb.conf file.
>
> I would love to hear from a knowledgeable authority on this.
>
> The best solution, of course, would be to stop defining the "Special Project
> Shares" in the user's "smb.username.conf" files. However, we would have to
> make many changes in the underlying program that is creating these shares and for
> the next few months it's not practical to update the programs on so many
> individual user's machines. It's much more practical to simply send out a new
> smb.conf file to every user.
I dont mean to be nosy, but why would every user need a copy of
smb.conf? Do they also run their own samba servers? It sounds like a
very interesting setup you have - what is the program that makes your
shares? Does it rewrite your smb.conf? Could you not just remove the
line "include = smb.%U.conf"? That way they would still get the project
share, and it would not matter about the customised smb.user.conf file.

PS I dont think duplicate entries in smb.conf will hurt. I just
discovered a duplicate in one of our include confs, and it was not
giving any errors. (include = %L.conf - for different netbios names) It
seems that the "last read" one is the one that is used.

--------------enig92F7DAD14E5A5B9253A4161F
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFB+MIok8NehiXod3wRAklNAJ9z6ea//lta5Jd+hJuX4ke8kiYTAQCgoc6P
rxfRBPbonUvyHBs5saQLpvw=
=1f9A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig92F7DAD14E5A5B9253A4161F--

--===============1040803142==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
--===============1040803142==--