similar to: client-side symlinks ?

04.05.2023 15:32, Ralph Boehme ?????: > On 5/4/23 13:57, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> Is it possible for windows to actually see and use symlinks on samba server? >> Windows NTFS does have notion of junctions and symbolic links, so when one >> open file A (which is a symbolic link), windows actually opens file B. >> Can such mechanism be used when A is on samba

On 5/4/23 13:57, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > Is it possible for windows to actually see and use symlinks on samba > server? > Windows NTFS does have notion of junctions and symbolic links, so when one > open file A (which is a symbolic link), windows actually opens file B. > Can such mechanism be used when A is on samba share? currently not, but with the upcoming SMB3 UNIX

On 04/05/2023 12:57, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > Hi! > > Is it possible for windows to actually see and use symlinks on samba > server? > Windows NTFS does have notion of junctions and symbolic links, so when one > open file A (which is a symbolic link), windows actually opens file B. > Can such mechanism be used when A is on samba share? > > This is probably a

Hello, since we install the most recent windows updates from 07/2023 Test-ComputerSecureChannel -Verbose show False [4]. Moved the machine to local workgroup, deleted machine account on the ad controller and rejoined it (which works), but Test-ComputerSecureChannel -Verbose show again False. I'm not sure this is an issue on the samba or on the windows side. Affected samba versions so far:

Hi! When I mount a samba share on linux (with mount -t cifs), samba correctly return EBUSY when trying to open a file for writing which is locked by some other client. However, I can trivially rename or (remove and create anew) such file from linux without any restrictions. After doing so, windows clients fail to open this (replaced) file exactly the same way as if I replaced it behind

16.03.2024 20:11, Ralph Boehme wrote: > On 3/16/24 14:18, Michael Tokarev wrote: >> So I'm trying to go exactly the opposite route: I'm mounting a samba >> share on linux (with cifs, see $subject). > > ah, missed that. Had read it as if you were acting on the Samba server directly. > > This smells like "strict rename" isn't enabled ? it isn't

16.03.2024 16:06, Ralph Boehme wrote: > On 3/16/24 06:59, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> How to prevent rm and mv from touching a locked file? > > cf man smb.conf "kernel share modes" and > > git diff d40f57321a12~9..d40f57321a12 Hello Ralph! I'm not sure we understand each other here. Yes I'm aware of "kernel share modes" and turning off

23.04.2024 04:32, Jones Syue ??? via samba wrote: > https://lists.samba.org/archive/cifs-protocol/2024-April/004282.html > Just for reference Microsoft will update doc [MS-SMB2] later :) This does not answer how windows chooses signing key if the connection is anonymous, though -- it is what started this whole thread :) Thanks, /mjt

On 7/14/23 07:42, Daniel M?ller wrote: > Where to get the patch? > We are running samba 4.17.4 on debian11 . We compiled from source. it's linked in the bugreport https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15418 <https://cpaste.org/?df0494cac0063e2e#Cx69G684EBPQ71S6sAUVXSYburgV6gPyKHfPSbfmHZPJ> Hth! -slow -- Ralph Boehme, Samba Team https://samba.org/

Where to get the patch? We are running samba 4.17.4 on debian11 . We compiled from source. Greetings Daniel -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Ralph Boehme via samba [mailto:samba at lists.samba.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Juli 2023 18:40 An: samba <samba at lists.samba.org> Betreff: Re: [Samba] Test-ComputerSecureChannel -Verbose False since windows 10/11 update 07/2023 Hi

Hello all, https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15418#c20 "This could be a shortterm fix in order to behave like an unpatched windows server" What is the attack scenario of an unpatched windows server? After all Microsoft likely patched to fix an issue, the short term solution probably restores not only NLA but also the vulnerability.. I am not arguing against the fix, as the

Hi! We had a painful debugging session today, with a samba AS member server not being able to auth users anymore. The issue seems to be due to defect in samba internal DNS resolution as done in winbind. TL;DR: samba internal DNS client should not rely on UDP-only DNS, but should retry using TCP if TC bit is set in answer. There's a real-life issue with this simplistic DNS implementation.

Hi! I'm trying to understand how various ways to grant a file lease to (windows) clients works. Especially in context when files are being modified locally on the linux filesystem. For example, there's this wording in man smb.conf: kernel share modes ... Kernel share modes provide a minimal level of interoperability with local UNIX processes and NFS operations by

Yes, in my opinion quite an arrogancy... This is the translation of what I got from the supporter: "Our developers have discussed and have concluded that we stand by our previous statement and define the problem as a problem of Samba AD Server (4.17.*). Although Synology is an open source product based on Samba, but we don't always stick to it and adapt our own code in many

Sebastian Neustein wrote: > I have to migrate our data from one old samba server to a new one. Due > to various reasons we had to change some settings. Now I struggle to > get the acls right. > ?Previously the acls were stored via posix and extended attributes, > now they are stored only in extended attributes With the default settings of vfs_acl_xattr samba takes posix acls

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 03:19:59PM +0200, Ralph Boehme wrote: >On 8/21/23 11:53, Jones Syue ??? via samba wrote: >>>OH - that's *really* interesting ! I wonder how it is >>>changing the SMB3+ redirector to do this ? >> >>It looks like applications could do something and give a hint to SMB3+ >>redirector, so far not quite sure how to make it, >>per

Hi Ralph > On 8/18/23 09:55, Sebastian Neustein via samba wrote: >> With the default settings of vfs_acl_xattr samba takes posix acls >> into account when delivering data - how can I activate >> "acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes" >> without loosing the information saved in posix acls? Background: our >> future file system won't be able to support

Hello Jeremy, > OH - that's *really* interesting ! I wonder how it is > changing the SMB3+ redirector to do this ? It looks like applications could do something and give a hint to SMB3+ redirector, so far not quite sure how to make it, per process monitor (procmon) could show that write I/O size seems could be pass from the application layers,

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 08:29:17PM +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >24.01.2023 20:22, Ralph Boehme via samba wrote: >>What Samba version is this? This: >> >>>LEASE() >> >>... looks broken: the handle oplock/lease state claims to be a >>lease, which means the client didn't request an oplock but a lease >>which should not have happened in

Hi, I'm running Samba Active Directory 4.16.9 with packages from Sernet. Domain members are Linux servers (Ubuntu 20.04, RHEL 8) with Sernet Samba 4.16.x. I'm getting crazy with group memberships syncing from AD to Linux members. It is completely random as when changes in AD group are visible in Linux OS (or more precise: winbind), it might take minutes, hours or days as when these