Hide Forgot
Description of problem: this happens when a Domain Admin adds a user-permission set via properties/security in Windows folder_A was created by a Domain Admin new permission - Modify - was added over the folder_A to the user_A user_A created a file_A.txt in folder_A later Domain Admin goes back to the properties of folder_A wanting to change/modify security entries operation fails on windows: for an individual user permission "An error occurred while applying security information to: ..\folder_A\files_A.txt. Access is denied" and acl don't get applied for a group, as for a user plus after "... access is denied" also "The parameter is incorrect." on samba in logs the error is as in the subject Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 3.5.6-86.el6_1.4 How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.
*** Bug 809024 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Technical note added. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team. New Contents: Cause: Newer versions of Windows cannot properly set ACLs on a Samba share. The users are receiving an "access denied" warning. Consequence: Admins or Users cannot fully control ACLs on a Samba share. Fix: Samba has been fixed to address this issue. Result: ACLs can be fully managed again.
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. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-0850.html