All,
I have been working on a component that is included with samba called SMBSH.
The binary allows you to automount your NT shares by accessing your profile . I
have been working on this for the last
few days and have been unsuccesful at getting it work. Now I am not much of a
programmer, but I did my best to try and troubleshoot this. However it just
does not want to work in Linux. I notice
that during an strace I can see that it is attempting to create a shared
environment by using FCNTL calls using 64bit locking. Later in the code it
tries to lock the environment again but I notice
this time the fcntl function stops using the 64bit function and ends up using
the 32bit argument. Which eventually forces the program to exit because of an
invalid argument
Portion of the strace where it locks the shared environment and than unlocks it
using fcntl64() using 64bit arguments against it.
fcntl64(8191, F_SETLKW64, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=1},
0xbffff200) = 0
fstat64(8191, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0600, st_size=0, ...}) = 0
fcntl64(8191, F_SETLK64, {type=F_UNLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=1},
0xbffff200) = 0
Portion of the strace where it sets the locks the shared environment again using
fcntl() using a 64bit argument against the function. Which is why I am getting
an invalid argument because that
argument can not be used with that function.
fcntl(8191, F_SETLKW64, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=1},
0xbfffeec0) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
write(2, "ERROR: can\'t get smbw shared loc"..., 53ERROR:
can't get smbw shared lock (Invalid argument))= 53
What I am trying to figure out is.. why is going from using fcntl64() to
fcntl().. I have looked through most of the source code and have found nothing.
I have sent emails to the samba lists and to
redhat. So far I have gotten the following responses.
Quote from Redhat:
Hi, I have an update on your issue!
A direct quote from engineering on your issue:
" As I understand it, smbsh can not work on the recent glibc versions as
they no longer support the LD_PRELOAD features (hacks? :) smbsh employs. On non
linux unix variants smbsh will still work in
general (they dont after all use glibc). The LD_PRELOAD user space fs simply
wont work on recent glibc versions alas, LD_PRELOAD itself certainly still
works.
" It\'s the \"back door\" symbols _open, _read, _write which
allows smbsh to wrap around the normal file calls, possibly redirect them to
smb, and then call the actual C library function using the
underscore functions.
The GNU C library maintainers have decided to remove support for these symbols
in glibc 2.1and forward.
" So, overall maybe this is the good reason of why we do not have
smbwrapper/smbsh shipped :-)
" I would use autofs, to do the same functionality. You\'d need a
program that uses libsmb (or just calls smbclient) to retrieve the browse list,
and reformats it into an autofs map."
Jp Robinson
I am just trying to gather some thoughts here to see if anybody has has
experiene with an issue like this.. this may not be a samba thing but a GLIBC
issue.. any ides? suggestions on what to work on
next?
Thanks,
Christopher Johnston
Merrill Lynch / DCSA
(201) 671-2368
http://linux.worldnet.ml.com <http://linux.worldnet.ml.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 01:43:54PM -0400, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) wrote:> > Quote from Redhat: > > Hi, I have an update on your issue! > > A direct quote from engineering on your issue: > > " As I understand it, smbsh can not work on the recent glibc versions as they no longer support the LD_PRELOAD features (hacks? :) smbsh employs. On non linux unix variants smbsh will still work in > general (they dont after all use glibc). The LD_PRELOAD user space fs simply wont work on recent glibc versions alas, LD_PRELOAD itself certainly still works. > > " It\'s the \"back door\" symbols _open, _read, _write which allows smbsh to wrap around the normal file calls, possibly redirect them to smb, and then call the actual C library function using the > underscore functions. > > The GNU C library maintainers have decided to remove support for these symbols in glibc 2.1and forward. > > " So, overall maybe this is the good reason of why we do not have smbwrapper/smbsh shipped :-) > > " I would use autofs, to do the same functionality. You\'d need a program that uses libsmb (or just calls smbclient) to retrieve the browse list, and reformats it into an autofs map." > > Jp Robinson > > I am just trying to gather some thoughts here to see if anybody has has experiene with an issue like this.. this may not be a samba thing but a GLIBC issue.. any ides? suggestions on what to work on > next?Yes, I'm pretty sure this is a glibc issue. I'm not sure why (for what technical reason) the GLIBC maintainers decided to do this, as it breaks all user level filesystems that depend on the same trick that smbsh uses. It seems like we can only support smbsh on libc systems which support this, that does not include Linux at this time. Jeremy.
>Portion of the strace where it sets the locks the shared environmentagain using fcntl() using>a 64bit argument against the function.? Which is why I am getting aninvalid argument because>that argument can not be used with that function.>fcntl(8191, F_SETLKW64, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=1},0xbfffeec0) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)>write(2, "ERROR: can\'t get smbw shared loc"..., 53ERROR: can't get smbwshared lock (Invalid argument))= 53 What is the hardware platform? ---------------------------- Jim McDonough IBM Linux Technology Center Samba Team 6 Minuteman Drive Scarborough, ME 04074 USA jmcd@us.ibm.com jmcd@samba.org Phone: (207) 885-5565 IBM tie-line: 776-9984
Linux 7.3 Glibc 2.2.5 Samba 2.2.5 Christopher Johnston Merrill Lynch / DCSA (201) 671-2368 http://linux.worldnet.ml.com -----Original Message----- From: Jim McDonough [mailto:jmcd@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:52 PM To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) Cc: samba-technical@samba.org; samba@samba.org Subject: Re: FW: samba woes>Portion of the strace where it sets the locks the shared environmentagain using fcntl() using>a 64bit argument against the function.? Which is why I am getting aninvalid argument because>that argument can not be used with that function.>fcntl(8191, F_SETLKW64, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, >len=1},0xbfffeec0) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)>write(2, "ERROR: can\'t get smbw shared loc"..., 53ERROR: can't get >smbwshared lock (Invalid argument))= 53 What is the hardware platform? ---------------------------- Jim McDonough IBM Linux Technology Center Samba Team 6 Minuteman Drive Scarborough, ME 04074 USA jmcd@us.ibm.com jmcd@samba.org Phone: (207) 885-5565 IBM tie-line: 776-9984
Hardware.. It's an x86 PC, or mainframe, for example?
I've seen the lack of 64-bit fcntl on a mainframe, and I've got an open
bug
on glibc.
----------------------------
Jim McDonough
IBM Linux Technology Center
Samba Team
6 Minuteman Drive
Scarborough, ME 04074
USA
jmcd@us.ibm.com
jmcd@samba.org
Phone: (207) 885-5565
IBM tie-line: 776-9984
"Johnston, Christopher (DCSA)" <cjohnston@exchange.ml.com> on
06/26/2002
01:58:52 PM
To: Jim McDonough/Portland/IBM@IBMUS, "Johnston, Christopher
(DCSA)"
<cjohnston@exchange.ml.com>
cc: samba-technical@samba.org, samba@samba.org
Subject: RE: FW: samba woes
Linux 7.3
Glibc 2.2.5
Samba 2.2.5
Christopher Johnston
Merrill Lynch / DCSA
(201) 671-2368
http://linux.worldnet.ml.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim McDonough [mailto:jmcd@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:52 PM
To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA)
Cc: samba-technical@samba.org; samba@samba.org
Subject: Re: FW: samba woes
>Portion of the strace where it sets the locks the shared environment
again using fcntl() using>a 64bit argument against the function.? Which is why I am getting an
invalid argument because>that argument can not be used with that function.
>fcntl(8191, F_SETLKW64, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0,
>len=1},
0xbfffeec0) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)>write(2, "ERROR: can\'t get smbw shared loc"..., 53ERROR:
can't get
>smbw
shared lock (Invalid argument))= 53
What is the hardware platform?
----------------------------
Jim McDonough
IBM Linux Technology Center
Samba Team
6 Minuteman Drive
Scarborough, ME 04074
USA
jmcd@us.ibm.com
jmcd@samba.org
Phone: (207) 885-5565
IBM tie-line: 776-9984
x86 PC.. sorry..
Christopher Johnston
Merrill Lynch / DCSA
(201) 671-2368
http://linux.worldnet.ml.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim McDonough [mailto:jmcd@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:02 PM
To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA)
Cc: samba-technical@samba.org; samba@samba.org
Subject: RE: FW: samba woes
Hardware.. It's an x86 PC, or mainframe, for example?
I've seen the lack of 64-bit fcntl on a mainframe, and I've got an open
bug on glibc.
----------------------------
Jim McDonough
IBM Linux Technology Center
Samba Team
6 Minuteman Drive
Scarborough, ME 04074
USA
jmcd@us.ibm.com
jmcd@samba.org
Phone: (207) 885-5565
IBM tie-line: 776-9984
"Johnston, Christopher (DCSA)" <cjohnston@exchange.ml.com> on
06/26/2002 01:58:52 PM
To: Jim McDonough/Portland/IBM@IBMUS, "Johnston, Christopher
(DCSA)"
<cjohnston@exchange.ml.com>
cc: samba-technical@samba.org, samba@samba.org
Subject: RE: FW: samba woes
Linux 7.3
Glibc 2.2.5
Samba 2.2.5
Christopher Johnston
Merrill Lynch / DCSA
(201) 671-2368
http://linux.worldnet.ml.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim McDonough [mailto:jmcd@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:52 PM
To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA)
Cc: samba-technical@samba.org; samba@samba.org
Subject: Re: FW: samba woes
>Portion of the strace where it sets the locks the shared environment
again using fcntl() using>a 64bit argument against the function.? Which is why I am getting an
invalid argument because>that argument can not be used with that function.
>fcntl(8191, F_SETLKW64, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0,
>len=1},
0xbfffeec0) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)>write(2, "ERROR: can\'t get smbw shared loc"..., 53ERROR:
can't get
>smbw
shared lock (Invalid argument))= 53
What is the hardware platform?
----------------------------
Jim McDonough
IBM Linux Technology Center
Samba Team
6 Minuteman Drive
Scarborough, ME 04074
USA
jmcd@us.ibm.com
jmcd@samba.org
Phone: (207) 885-5565
IBM tie-line: 776-9984
Jeremy, Thanks.. is there a fix for this sometime in the future? or is this something that has to do with GLIBC not allowing these symbols or functions to be used anymore? If it is a bug/problem with smbsh.. the linux community is not aware of this and should be.. Thanks, Christopher Johnston Merrill Lynch / DCSA (201) 671-2368 http://linux.worldnet.ml.com -----Original Message----- From: jra@samba.org [mailto:jra@samba.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:51 PM To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) Cc: 'samba-technical@samba.org'; 'samba@samba.org' Subject: Re: FW: samba woes On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 01:43:54PM -0400, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) wrote:> > Quote from Redhat: > > Hi, I have an update on your issue! > > A direct quote from engineering on your issue: > > " As I understand it, smbsh can not work on the recent glibc versions > as they no longer support the LD_PRELOAD features (hacks? :) smbsh > employs. On non linux unix variants smbsh will still work in general > (they dont after all use glibc). The LD_PRELOAD user space fs simply > wont work on recent glibc versions alas, LD_PRELOAD itself certainly > still works. > > " It\'s the \"back door\" symbols _open, _read, _write which allows > smbsh to wrap around the normal file calls, possibly redirect them to > smb, and then call the actual C library function using the underscore > functions. > > The GNU C library maintainers have decided to remove support for these > symbols in glibc 2.1and forward. > > " So, overall maybe this is the good reason of why we do not have > smbwrapper/smbsh shipped :-) > > " I would use autofs, to do the same functionality. You\'d need a > program that uses libsmb (or just calls smbclient) to retrieve the > browse list, and reformats it into an autofs map." > > Jp Robinson > > I am just trying to gather some thoughts here to see if anybody has > has experiene with an issue like this.. this may not be a samba thing > but a GLIBC issue.. any ides? suggestions on what to work on next?Yes, I'm pretty sure this is a glibc issue. I'm not sure why (for what technical reason) the GLIBC maintainers decided to do this, as it breaks all user level filesystems that depend on the same trick that smbsh uses. It seems like we can only support smbsh on libc systems which support this, that does not include Linux at this time. Jeremy.
Jim, Jeremy, et. al.: Is this problem documented in any of the Linux-specific Samba docs? If not, perhaps it should be added as a "known bug" which prevents smbsh from functioning on Linux? Also, what can we do to either smbsh or glibc that would work towards a fix on this issue? Is this something that we could hack with or is it better left to very experienced systems programmers? If you don't mind us hacking at it in our free time, might you have any pointers towards a "useful" hack? /EJS -----Original Message----- From: Jim McDonough [mailto:jmcd@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:02 PM To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) Cc: samba-technical@samba.org; samba@samba.org Subject: RE: FW: samba woes Hardware.. It's an x86 PC, or mainframe, for example? I've seen the lack of 64-bit fcntl on a mainframe, and I've got an open bug on glibc.
what is that exactly? I am looking for a method to automount NT shares from windows to linux.. so my users can access their home directories.. Christopher Johnston Merrill Lynch / DCSA (201) 671-2368 http://linux.worldnet.ml.com -----Original Message----- From: Christopher R. Hertel [mailto:crh@nts.umn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:15 PM To: Stieglitz, Eric J. (DCSA) Cc: 'Jim McDonough'; Johnston, Christopher (DCSA); samba-technical@samba.org; 'samba@samba.org' Subject: Re: FW: samba woes "Stieglitz, Eric J. (DCSA)" wrote:> > Jim, Jeremy, et. al.: > > Is this problem documented in any of the Linux-specific Samba docs? If > not, perhaps it should be added as a "known bug" which prevents smbsh > from functioning on Linux? > > Also, what can we do to either smbsh or glibc that would work towards > a fix on this issue? Is this something that we could hack with or is > it better left to very experienced systems programmers? If you don't > mind us hacking at it in our free time, might you have any pointers > towards a "useful" hack?*IF* I understand what Jeremy said (which is not generally the case...he's from Yorkshire, after all, and I'm still learning to speak Minnesotan) it sounds as though there was an architectural change in glibc. I am wondering if, for Linux, something like Steve's CIFS VFS might not be a better way to provide the same functionality. Chris -)----- -- Christopher R. Hertel -)----- University of Minnesota crh@nts.umn.edu Networking and Telecommunications Services
That stinks.. so smbsh is pretty much usueless at this point unless those symbols get put back into glibc.. Thanks, Christopher Johnston Merrill Lynch / DCSA (201) 671-2368 http://linux.worldnet.ml.com -----Original Message----- From: jra@samba.org [mailto:jra@samba.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:19 PM To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) Cc: 'jra@samba.org'; 'samba-technical@samba.org'; 'samba@samba.org' Subject: Re: [Samba] RE: FW: samba woes On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:06:39PM -0400, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) wrote:> Jeremy, > > Thanks.. is there a fix for this sometime in the future? or is this > something that has to do with GLIBC not allowing these symbols or > functions to be used anymore?It is a GLIBC issue as far as I'm aware. They just removed the ability to redefine these symbols, something smbsh depends on. Nothing we can do about it I'm afraid, it was a decision by the GLIBC maintainers (and I'm not aware of the technical reasons for it, or if they provided a work-around in any way). Jeremy.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:25:56PM -0400, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) wrote:> That stinks.. so smbsh is pretty much usueless at this point unless those symbols get put back into glibc..On Linux, yes. It still works on Solaris I think. Jeremy.
Yea we have it working on Solaris 2.8 with no problems at all.. just need it on Linux.. since that is the big push from management.. Since I got you hot on this email.. winbindd.. has there been any plans in to have some sort of a centralized database for SID->UID mappings? or some sort of a PAM plugin to authenticate against a winbindd server? Christopher Johnston Merrill Lynch / DCSA (201) 671-2368 http://linux.worldnet.ml.com -----Original Message----- From: jra@samba.org [mailto:jra@samba.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:29 PM To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) Cc: 'jra@samba.org'; 'samba-technical@samba.org'; 'samba@samba.org' Subject: Re: [Samba] RE: FW: samba woes On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:25:56PM -0400, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) wrote:> That stinks.. so smbsh is pretty much usueless at this point unless > those symbols get put back into glibc..On Linux, yes. It still works on Solaris I think. Jeremy.
If only I could program.. =] Christopher Johnston Merrill Lynch / DCSA (201) 671-2368 http://linux.worldnet.ml.com -----Original Message----- From: Steve Langasek [mailto:vorlon@netexpress.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:30 PM To: Jeremy Allison Cc: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA); 'samba-technical@samba.org'; 'samba@samba.org' Subject: Re: [Samba] RE: FW: samba woes On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:> On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:06:39PM -0400, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) > wrote: > > Jeremy,> > Thanks.. is there a fix for this sometime in the future? or is this > > something that has to do with GLIBC not allowing these symbols or > > functions to be used anymore?> It is a GLIBC issue as far as I'm aware. They just removed the ability > to redefine these symbols, something smbsh depends on.> Nothing we can do about it I'm afraid, it was a decision > by the GLIBC maintainers (and I'm not aware of the technical reasons > for it, or if they provided a work-around in any way).Dave C-B has previously posted here details of an smbsh redesign that would allow preloading of libsmbwrapper.so to work under Linux in spite of the glibc changes. In fact, it would work better, as his design doesn't require *any* of the current autoconf checks for systems that support dlsym(RTLD_NEXT). That includes Linux, the BSDs, and Solaris, AIUI, and possibly other systems where smbsh is currently used. It's simply a matter of digging in and recoding libsmbwrapper. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Yup, works perfectly fine on Solaris...I was running a debugger-filled version of the code on both systems and tried to follow the fcntl and fd calls in both. On Solaris it worked exactly as advertised. /EJS -----Original Message----- From: jra@samba.org [mailto:jra@samba.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:29 PM To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) Cc: 'jra@samba.org'; 'samba-technical@samba.org'; 'samba@samba.org' Subject: Re: [Samba] RE: FW: samba woes On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:25:56PM -0400, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) wrote:> That stinks.. so smbsh is pretty much usueless at this point unless > those symbols get put back into glibc..On Linux, yes. It still works on Solaris I think. Jeremy.
Jeremy Allison wrote:> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:25:56PM -0400, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) wrote: > > That stinks.. so smbsh is pretty much usueless at this point unless those symbols get put back into glibc.. > > On Linux, yes. It still works on Solaris I think. > > Jeremy.And it works on IRIX -- =====================================================================Herb Lewis Silicon Graphics Networking Engineer 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy MS-510 Strategic Software Organization Mountain View, CA 94043-1351 herb@sgi.com Tel: 650-933-2177 http://www.sgi.com Fax: 650-932-2177 ======================================================================
Excellent.. however we are attempting to try and put together an LDAP solution here at ML to keep a centralized database of SID->UID mappings.. than letting the LDAP client make calls against the database for a UID.. what we would need is a backend script/program to make calls against winbind using wbinfo.. and than passing that info off to the LDAP server.. not sure if that would work.. but it is something management here has been talking about asking me to implement.. Thanks, Christopher Johnston Merrill Lynch / DCSA (201) 671-2368 http://linux.worldnet.ml.com -----Original Message----- From: jra@samba.org [mailto:jra@samba.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:33 PM To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) Cc: 'jra@samba.org'; 'samba-technical@samba.org'; 'samba@samba.org' Subject: Re: [Samba] RE: FW: samba woes On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:30:44PM -0400, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) wrote:> Yea we have it working on Solaris 2.8 with no problems at all.. just > need it on Linux.. since that is the big push from management.. > > Since I got you hot on this email.. winbindd.. has there been any > plans in to have some sort of a centralized database for SID->UID > mappings? or some sort of a PAM plugin to authenticate against a > winbindd server?Yes it's planned..... Not sure on timeframe though. We'll be spending lots more time on getting 3.0.x out in the next few months. Jeremy.
>Jim, Jeremy, et. al.: > >Is this problem documented in any of the Linux-specific Samba docs? >If not, perhaps it should be added as a "known bug" which prevents >smbsh from functioning on Linux?FYI, the bug I was referring to was a general lack of 64-bit fcntl cupport on s390...there is a glibc fix I'm testing out for that. It has nothing to do with the LD_PRELOAD being removed... ---------------------------- Jim McDonough IBM Linux Technology Center Samba Team 6 Minuteman Drive Scarborough, ME 04074 USA jmcd@us.ibm.com jmcd@samba.org Phone: (207) 885-5565 IBM tie-line: 776-9984
Herb, On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 11:37:19AM -0700, Herb Lewis wrote:> Jeremy Allison wrote:> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:25:56PM -0400, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) wrote: > > > That stinks.. so smbsh is pretty much usueless at this point unless those symbols get put back into glibc..> > On Linux, yes. It still works on Solaris I think.> > Jeremy.> And it works on IRIXAre you able to speak to whether dlsym(RTLD_NEXT,...) works on Irix? Fixing smbsh to work on Linux again becomes immensely easier if *only* this mechanism needs to be supported. Cheers, Steve Langasek postmodern programmer -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20020626/b089d215/attachment.bin
>The common way to do that *kind* of thing would be by using SMBFS. >My *guess* (because I really have not spent enough time working with >SMBFS) is that the problem you're seeing is that you want a user-context >mount (that is, only the user who mounted the share >should be able to see the share), but you can't get that with SMBFS. > >That's a guess... > >I don't know if Steve's CIFS VFS bypasses that. He just made it >available last week, I think...I spoke to Steve earler today (he's at OLS) about this exact topic. He's currently working on this (and he wants to talk to YOU, jra) as we speak (and I think as someone else speaks in Ottawa). It will support it soon, if not already. ---------------------------- Jim McDonough IBM Linux Technology Center Samba Team 6 Minuteman Drive Scarborough, ME 04074 USA jmcd@us.ibm.com jmcd@samba.org Phone: (207) 885-5565 IBM tie-line: 776-9984
Yes it would be Christopher Johnston Merrill Lynch / DCSA (201) 671-2368 http://linux.worldnet.ml.com -----Original Message----- From: Steve Langasek [mailto:vorlon@netexpress.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:03 PM To: Jeremy Allison Cc: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA); 'samba-technical@samba.org'; 'samba@samba.org' Subject: Re: [Samba] RE: FW: samba woes On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 11:32:09AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:> On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 01:30:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:> > Dave C-B has previously posted here details of an smbsh redesign > > that would allow preloading of libsmbwrapper.so to work under Linux > > in spite of the glibc changes. In fact, it would work better, as > > his design doesn't require *any* of the current autoconf checks for > > systems that support dlsym(RTLD_NEXT). That includes Linux, the > > BSDs, and Solaris, AIUI, and possibly other systems where smbsh is > > currently used.> > It's simply a matter of digging in and recoding libsmbwrapper.> Oh, thanks Steve, I missed that. Can you point me to the mailing list > archives for this ? Maybe we can get it done for 3.0.x ?Top of the thread: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=samba-technical&m=101683637902994&w=2 It'd be great to see smbsh come back to Linux for 3.0. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Yea I have tried using the automount.. the tough thing is.. we have alot of users.. so maintaing an auto-map can be really tough.. Christopher Johnston Merrill Lynch / DCSA (201) 671-2368 http://linux.worldnet.ml.com -----Original Message----- From: Urban Widmark [mailto:urban@teststation.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:47 PM To: 'crh@umn.edu' Cc: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA); Stieglitz, Eric J. (DCSA); 'Jim McDonough'; samba-technical@samba.org; 'samba@samba.org' Subject: Re: FW: samba woes On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:> "Johnston, Christopher (DCSA)" wrote: > > > > what is that exactly? I am looking for a method to automount NT > > shares from windows to linux.. so my users can access their home > > directories.. > > The common way to do that *kind* of thing would be by using SMBFS. My > *guess* (because I really have not spent enough time working with > SMBFS) is that the problem you're seeing is that you want a > user-context mount (that is, only the user who mounted the share > should be able to see the share), but you can't get that with SMBFS.You can give only a single user access to the mount. But it will be visible to others (inaccessible perhaps, but visible). An autofs map for /home looking like this could be a starting point: username1 -fstype=smbfs,credentials=/etc/samba/cred1,uid=username1 \ ://server/share username2 -fstype=smbfs,credentials=/etc/samba/cred2,uid=username2 \ ://server/share ... I think the RH suggestion was something like this, but with a script that generates the map (see executable maps in the autofs docs). pam_mount is also sometimes mentioned for this kind of thing, mount things when people login based on their username/password.> I don't know if Steve's CIFS VFS bypasses that. He just made it > available last week, I think...I understand there are plans to support accessing as different users on a single mount, and that is relevant if you want to mount /home and not each of the subdirectories as well as if you want users to access each others dirs as themselves. But that's more the opposite of being invisible to other users. /Urban
The tough part is knowing all the file server the users are on.. we have over 2 dozen file servers I believe.. Christopher Johnston Merrill Lynch / DCSA (201) 671-2368 http://linux.worldnet.ml.com -----Original Message----- From: Mike Gerdts [mailto:Michael.Gerdts@alcatel.com] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 2:04 PM To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) Cc: 'Urban Widmark'; 'crh@umn.edu'; Stieglitz, Eric J. (DCSA); 'Jim McDonough'; samba-technical@samba.org; 'samba@samba.org' Subject: RE: FW: samba woes The automount map below could be simplified using the macros used by automountd: * -fstype=smbfs,credentials=/etc/samba/&,uid=& Whether you have 1 user or 100,000 users, all you should need is this one line. This is documented on Linux in autofs(5) and on Solaris in automount(1M). Mike On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 10:55, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) wrote:> Yea I have tried using the automount.. the tough thing is.. we have > alot of users.. so maintaing an auto-map can be really tough.. >...> -----Original Message----- > From: Urban Widmark [mailto:urban@teststation.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:47 PM > To: 'crh@umn.edu' > Cc: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA); Stieglitz, Eric J. (DCSA); 'Jim McDonough'; samba-technical@samba.org; 'samba@samba.org' > Subject: Re: FW: samba woes >...> You can give only a single user access to the mount. But it will be visible to others (inaccessible perhaps, but visible). > > An autofs map for /home looking like this could be a starting point: > username1 -fstype=smbfs,credentials=/etc/samba/cred1,uid=username1 \ > ://server/share > username2 -fstype=smbfs,credentials=/etc/samba/cred2,uid=username2 \ > ://server/share > ... >
Yea.. it would be nice if there was a way to access each the users profile..which would than give the users file server and share... is there a way? Thanks, Christopher Johnston Merrill Lynch / DCSA (201) 671-2368 http://linux.worldnet.ml.com -----Original Message----- From: Urban Widmark [mailto:urban@teststation.com] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 2:58 PM To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) Cc: 'Mike Gerdts'; Stieglitz, Eric J. (DCSA); 'samba@samba.org' Subject: RE: FW: samba woes [Cc list trimmed] On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) wrote:> The tough part is knowing all the file server the users are on.. we > have over 2 dozen file servers I believe..You could use one such map for each server, but yes you need to know who is on first (what's on second ...) /home/server1/userA /home/server1/userB ... /home/server2/userG ... The autofs stuff could perhaps look something like this. /etc/auto.master: /home/server1 /etc/auto.server1 --timeout=60 /home/server2 /etc/auto.server2 --timeout=60 ... /etc/auto.server1: * -fstype=smbfs,credentials=/etc/samba/&,uid=& /etc/auto.server2: * -fstype=smbfs,credentials=/etc/samba/&,uid=& And the homedirs of the users are stored in whatever it is you are using to store info on users in. For /etc/passwd: userA:x:1:1:foo:/home/server1/userA:/bin/bash userB:x:1:1:foo:/home/server1/userB:/bin/bash ... userG:x:1:1:foo:/home/server2/userG:/bin/bash ... I think knowing which server holds the homedir of which user is something you will need to know, one way or the other, no matter what you do. Even if you have one server that is a DFS server isn't that server going to keep things in per-server subdirectories? Or perhaps you can have one DFS server that exports "/home" with each users homedir is a DFS referralpoint (or whatever they are called). And with 10000 users you'd have 10000 referralpoints. Won't accessing that be a bit costly? Note that to build that DFS share you are still going to have to know where each users home directory is ...> -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Gerdts [mailto:Michael.Gerdts@alcatel.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 2:04 PM > To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) > Cc: 'Urban Widmark'; 'crh@umn.edu'; Stieglitz, Eric J. (DCSA); 'Jim McDonough'; samba-technical@samba.org; 'samba@samba.org' > Subject: RE: FW: samba woes > > > The automount map below could be simplified using the macros used by > automountd: > > * -fstype=smbfs,credentials=/etc/samba/&,uid=&Didn't know that. Seems far too simple ... :) /Urban