Sirs, several computers in our network are begining to exhibit the following erros in the /var/log/samba/log.machine_name. I am running Samba that comes with Mandrake 8.0 The error is: [2001/10/29 19:05:37] smbd/oplock.c:request_oplock_break (1244) request_oplock_break: no response received to oplock break request to pid 981 on port 32780 for dev = 301, inode = 291068 for dev = 301, inode = 291068, tv_sec = 3bdddbcb, tv_usec = 94d66 This messages are repeated almost every second in our 40 node logs. This message started to appear about two days ago. Nothing has been changed in the samba. The error gets corrected (i mean the users are able to access the file again) when I do a samba stop/samba start. the samba is being used to share a single file used to keep track of a time based program. Here is smb.conf [global] workgroup = SKY netbios name = STIMPY server string = Samba Sever %v interfaces = 192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0 127.0.0.1/255.255.255.0 bind interfaces only = yes security = share encrypt passwords = yes null passwords = yes log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m mx log size = 50 time server = yes read prediction = yes socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_SNDBUF=16384 SO_RCVBUF=16384 printcap name = lpstat os level = 65 lm announce = false preferred master = yes domain master = yes dns proxy = no wins support = yes auto services = entermex default service = entermex socket address = 192.168.0.1 printing = cups [entermex] path = /home/entermex guest account = root force user = root force group = root writeable = yes guest only = yes guest ok = yes [base$] path = /home/entermex guest account = root force user = root force group = root writeable = yes guest only = yes guest ok = yes browseable = no That's it. Thats all the smb.conf. I know it is not the most security minded file share on earth, but as i said, it only share a single file for a clumsy time sharing program that runs on windows machines (all 40 clients). Any suggestions will be appreciated. thanks, Erick
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Dimitrie Paun wrote:> Linux version 2.2.16-22enterprise (root@porky.devel.redhat.com) (gcc version > egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)) #1 SMP Tue Aug 22 16:29:32 > EDT 20002.2.16 is old ...> smb_trans2_request: result=-32, setting invalid > smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 > smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5... and these are known effects of bugs in 2.2.16 (and samba 2.0.x). 2.4.x should be a lot better (as should samba 2.2.x). -5 is -EIO, and you get that when a connection is down. /Urban
> From: Urban Widmark [mailto:urban@teststation.com] > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Dimitrie Paun wrote: > > > Linux version 2.2.16-22enterprise > (root@porky.devel.redhat.com) (gcc version > > egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)) #1 SMP > Tue Aug 22 16:29:32 > > EDT 2000 > > 2.2.16 is old ...I know, that's why I've upgraded to RedHat 7.2 yesterday: Linux version 2.4.7-10enterprise (bhcompile@stripples.devel.redhat.com) (gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-98)) #1 SMP Thu Sep 6 16:48:20 EDT 2001 However, it did not fix the problem: smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec BTW, RedHat 7.2 runs samba 2.2.1b: [root@vangogh cellbucks]# rpm -q samba samba-2.2.1a-4 I do not understand why it complains about the noexec option. Here is my fstab: [root@vangogh cellbucks]# cat /etc/fstab LABEL=/ / ext3 defaults 1 1 LABEL=/boot /boot ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom iso9660 noauto,owner,ro 0 0 /dev/fd0 /mnt/floppy auto noauto,owner 0 0 LABEL=/tmp /tmp ext3 defaults 1 2 LABEL=/usr /usr ext3 defaults 1 2 LABEL=/var /var ext3 defaults 1 2 none /proc proc defaults 0 0 none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 none /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 /dev/sda8 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/sda2 /home ext3 defaults 1 2 //intranet/DBS_D /mnt/intranet smbfs user,username=cellbucksdev,password=in4mation 0 0> > smb_trans2_request: result=-32, setting invalid > > smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 > > smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 > > ... and these are known effects of bugs in 2.2.16 (and samba 2.0.x). > 2.4.x should be a lot better (as should samba 2.2.x). > > -5 is -EIO, and you get that when a connection is down.Thanks. It seems that it occurs after smb_trans2_request reports an error, which makes sense. What is smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid telling us? That the remote system disconnected? (if I understood correctly from some posts on the net). If so, can it be the Win2K autodisconnect feature at work here? Thanks, Dimi.
> From: Urban Widmark [mailto:urban@teststation.com] > > > I do not understand why it complains about the noexec > option. Here is my > > fstab: > > "user" implies noexec. smbmount doesn't understand "user" either.Right. But I need it 'cause I need non-root users mount the thing... Should not be a problem, right?> Yes. But that doesn't answer why it doesn't reconnect as it should.Aha -- I did not know that it was supposed to. Also, I noticed that on RH 7.0 (ie. Sambla 2.0.7), the error was: smb_trans2_request: result=-32, setting invalid smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 while on RH 7.2 (ie. Samba 2.2.1b), the error is: smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 Is -32 in 2.0.7 the same as -104 in 2.2.1b? Am I doing any better, or is it the same problem?> smbmount can log things more verbosely, try setting debug=4Add it to the fstab? Like so: //intranet/DBS_D /mnt/intranet smbfs user,username=cellbucksdev,password=in4mation,debug=4 0 0 ???> and see if you > get any interesting messages in /var/log/samba/smbmount.log > (assuming you run smbmount as someone that can write there)OK, I'll try to reproduce the problem with the above setting. I guess I need to make the smbmount.log writable by anyone. But, I remember that I needed to make smbmnt suid, shouldn't that be enough? -- Dimi.
> From: Urban Widmark [mailto:urban@teststation.com]> > Right. But I need it 'cause I need non-root users mount the thing... > > Should not be a problem, right? > > "user" does not give you that. Not with smbfs ... (look at the smbmnt > manpage, it's mostly correct except that the user needs to > own the dir)I'm using mount(8) to mount the samba share. From the man page: (iii) Normally, only the superuser can mount file systems. However, when fstab contains the user option on a line, then anybody can mount the corresponding system. Thus, given a line /dev/cdrom /cd iso9660 ro,user,noauto,unhide any user can mount the iso9660 file system found on his CDROM using the command mount /dev/cdrom or mount /cd For more details, see fstab(5). Only the user that mounted a filesystem can unmount it again. If any user should be able to unmount, then use users instead of user in the fstab line. The owner option is similar to the user option, with the restriction that the user must be the owner of the special file. This may be useful e.g. for /dev/fd if a login script makes the console user owner of this device. I tried to take it out, and sure enough, mount(8) refused to mount the share. Is it better to use smbmnt instead? Back to my problem, I still have it ;(. I've rerun the test with debug=4, I've included all relevant info below. Any idea? Why didn't I get more info in smbmount.log? [cellbucksdev@vangogh cellbucks]$ ls -l /var/log/samba/smbmount.log -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 692 Oct 31 16:41 /var/log/samba/smbmount.log [cellbucksdev@vangogh cellbucks]$ cat /var/log/samba/smbmount.log [2001/10/30 16:30:23, 0] client/smbmount.c:send_fs_socket(381) mount.smbfs: entering daemon mode for service \\intranet\DBS_D, pid=706 [2001/10/30 16:44:57, 0] client/smbmount.c:send_fs_socket(381) mount.smbfs: entering daemon mode for service \\intranet\DBS_D, pid=1441 [2001/10/31 11:43:20, 0] client/smbmount.c:send_fs_socket(381) mount.smbfs: entering daemon mode for service \\intranet\DBS_D, pid=15679 [2001/10/31 16:18:19, 0] client/smbmount.c:send_fs_socket(381) mount.smbfs: entering daemon mode for service \\intranet\DBS_D, pid=16615 [2001/10/31 16:41:25, 0] client/smbmount.c:send_fs_socket(381) mount.smbfs: entering daemon mode for service \\intranet\DBS_D, pid=17395 [cellbucksdev@vangogh cellbucks]$ cat /etc/fstab LABEL=/ / ext3 defaults 1 1 LABEL=/boot /boot ext3 defaults 1 2 /dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom iso9660 noauto,owner,ro 0 0 /dev/fd0 /mnt/floppy auto noauto,owner 0 0 LABEL=/tmp /tmp ext3 defaults 1 2 LABEL=/usr /usr ext3 defaults 1 2 LABEL=/var /var ext3 defaults 1 2 none /proc proc defaults 0 0 none /dev/shm tmpfs defaults 0 0 none /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0 /dev/sda8 swap swap defaults 0 0 /dev/sda2 /home ext3 defaults 1 2 //intranet/DBS_D /mnt/intranet smbfs user,username=cellbucksdev,password=in4mation,debug=4 0 0 [cellbucksdev@vangogh cellbucks]$ dmesg | tail -40 Mem:0xfe900000 IRQ:16 Speed:100 Mbps Dx:Full Hardware receive checksums enabled smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid smb_retry: successful, new pid=15679, generation=2 smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid smb_retry: successful, new pid=15995, generation=2 smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smbfs: Unrecognized mount option noexec smb_trans2_request: result=-104, setting invalid smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 smb_lookup: find //My Documents failed, error=-5 TIA, Dimi.
> From: Urban Widmark [mailto:urban@teststation.com] > > > > I'm using mount(8) to mount the samba share. From the man page: > > You are reading the wrong parts of the manpage. mount only starts > smbmount. Lots of options are not relevant, none of them are > handled by mount.Yeah, but I thought that mount(8) is used as an interface to smbmount(8).