Client reports lack of permission with sync root on a samba share

[TheOneRing]

That is private network share, mounted from own unix server.

Owner
-----
O:S-1-5-21-1870555893-4206527994-3855236253-3002

Access
------
All Allow  ReadAndExecute , Synchronize
S-1-5-21-1870555893-4206527994-3855236253-3002 Allow  FullControl
S-1-22-2-1001 Allow  ReadAndExecute, Synchronize

Folder was purged, and 2.9.0 recreated it's contents.
After that, I tried to run 2.9.1, but got "... is not writable" again.
Then I reverted to 2.9.0 again.

Originally posted by @rpv-tomsk in #9110 (comment)

[github-actions]

This issue was marked stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days.

[netzwergehh]

I would like to bring this back to your attention. I've exactly the same problem since 2.9.1. I've downgraded to 2.9.0 again and am not doing any updates now. Because 2.9.0 is working fine. All newer versions are broken.

Following setup:
Windows 10 21H2 with owncloud >=2.9.1
PC is accessing a SMB network share on Freenas as mapped network drive

I can create, modify delete files on that network share from windows just fine. But Owncloud >=2.9.1 is complaining it does not have write permissions. Even if I try to setup a new synchrinization partnership with a new folder on that network share it complains it has no write permissions.

So the check routine for write permissions in owncloud client >=2.9.1 seems to become broken.

Please fix that mess.

[netzwergehh]

By the way: This is still present in 2.10

[netzwergehh]

And I just saw the following: Although already existing synchronization partnerships on network shares are working fine in 2.9.0 you are unable to add a new one. This fails with no write permissions. Although I have full access on the share. It seems the funtion to check permissions must be broken even earlier but in 2.9.0 it was only used when creating new partnerships not when loading existing ones. This must have changed in 2.9.1 to also check existing ones.

Is it possible this has something to do with virtual files vs. traditional synchronization? Maybe you need special permissions for virtual files that you do not get over SMB share. That is fine. But I am using traditional synchronization what does not need the virtual files crap. So please check for the correct permissions depending on the selected kind of synchronization.

[netzwergehh]

At first look it seems the issue with already exsisting partnership got introduced here: #9065