Description of problem: Setting user.smb and user.cifs to disable doesn't remove the samba share from smb.conf. when volume is stopped and started then only the share goes off from smb.conf. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): rpm -qa|grep gluster glusterfs-libs-3.7.5-5.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-fuse-3.7.5-5.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-3.7.5-5.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-server-3.7.5-5.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-client-xlators-3.7.5-5.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-cli-3.7.5-5.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-api-3.7.5-5.el7rhgs.x86_64 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.create a volume 2.Start the volume 3.Set the user.cifs and user.smb to disable 4.Check the output from testparm and check smb.conf entry 5.Share entry for the volume should be removed. Actual results: share is still present in smb.conf and is ready for access. Expected results: share entry should be removed and the share should not be ready for access if user.cifs and user.smb is disabled. Additional info:
Verified with following steps : 1.created a volume 2.Started the volume 3.Set the user.cifs and user.smb to disable 4.Check the output from testparm and check smb.conf entry Expected result: ******************** With any of the options user.smb or user.cifs being set to disable should remove the entry from smb.conf and testparm should not show the share entry. Actual result: *************** With user.cifs set to disable , share entry is removed from smb.conf With user.smb set to disable , share entry is removed from smb.conf Marking the BZ verified using following build: glusterfs-3.7.5-7.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-api-3.7.5-7.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-server-3.7.5-7.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-rdma-3.7.5-7.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-fuse-3.7.5-7.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-geo-replication-3.7.5-7.el7rhgs.x86_64 samba-vfs-glusterfs-4.2.4-6.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-libs-3.7.5-7.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-client-xlators-3.7.5-7.el7rhgs.x86_64 glusterfs-cli-3.7.5-7.el7rhgs.x86_64
This does not require doc text as the bug was introduced and fixed within the dev cycle and not exposed to customer/user.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016-0193.html