Hi,
We've noticed the following problem:
Samba server:
RedHat 7.3
Linux version 2.4.18-3 (bhcompile@daffy.perf.redhat.com)
(gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-110))
Samba 2.2.8a
1 user defined
1 share defined
(it's a test-setup, server is a Dell ProLiant 2600 and isn't used for
anything else)
Client PC: Windows XP/Office97 and Windows2000/Office97
IF uid or gid of user > 65.535
AND samba loglevel > 2
THEN I have problems with saving word documents
errors on client: "disk full" "read-only" etc...
Well, you might suggest that if that's our problem, we should use small
uids/gids or shouldn't set the log-level higher than 2.
But the problem is that in our production environment, despite the fact
that log levels are set to 1, some users are sometimes having the same
problem with saving word-documents (Word97, Word2k and WordXP). Some do
have large uid's en practically all are having large gid's
We tried all Samba versions 2.2.3 up to 2.2.8a, tried RH7.1, RH7.3, XFS
1.0.1, XFS 1.1 and now Ext3
Colleagues of mine are saying "it can't be the kernel. It must be
something
in the Samba code"
Is there a reasonable explanation why, in our test-setup, log level 1 and 2
don't give a problem, and all the other levels do?
Thanx in advance,
Johan
smb.conf:
==============
[global]
netbios name = LS-AIV-96
server string = Server AIV - Testserver
workgroup = AIVTEST
encrypt passwords = yes
security = user
guest account = nobody
wins server = <ip address of wins server>
local master = Yes
preferred master = Yes
domain master = Yes
os level = 65
log level = 10
log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log
max log size = 0
timestamp logs = yes
syslog = 1
case sensitive = No
show add printer wizard = No
client code page = 850
character set = ISO8859-1
; ---------------------------------------------------------
; Added the following lines after a tip I received
; Problem is the same, whether with or without these lines
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_KEEPALIVE
deadtime = 15
keepalive = 10
oplocks = no
level2 oplocks = no
read raw = no
write raw = no
getwd cache = yes
; ---------------------------------------------------------
[aaa]
path = /home/samba/aaa
comment = test1
browseable = Yes
writeable = Yes
force group = +aaa-w
create mode = 664
directory mode = 2775
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 23:16, Johan Coenen wrote:> Hi, > > We've noticed the following problem: > > Samba server: > > RedHat 7.3 > Linux version 2.4.18-3 (bhcompile@daffy.perf.redhat.com) > (gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-110)) > Samba 2.2.8a > 1 user defined > 1 share defined > (it's a test-setup, server is a Dell ProLiant 2600 and isn't used for > anything else) > > Client PC: Windows XP/Office97 and Windows2000/Office97 > > > IF uid or gid of user > 65.535 > AND samba loglevel > 2 > THEN I have problems with saving word documents > errors on client: "disk full" "read-only" etc... > > Well, you might suggest that if that's our problem, we should use small > uids/gids or shouldn't set the log-level higher than 2. > But the problem is that in our production environment, despite the fact > that log levels are set to 1, some users are sometimes having the same > problem with saving word-documents (Word97, Word2k and WordXP). Some do > have large uid's en practically all are having large gid's > We tried all Samba versions 2.2.3 up to 2.2.8a, tried RH7.1, RH7.3, XFS > 1.0.1, XFS 1.1 and now Ext3 > > Colleagues of mine are saying "it can't be the kernel. It must be something > in the Samba code" > > Is there a reasonable explanation why, in our test-setup, log level 1 and 2 > don't give a problem, and all the other levels do?Not sure about the log level stuff, but try your recent glibc security upgrade for the problem :-) Well, that's what I blamed - as soon as I backed down the update (this was in 8.0, but 7.3 might have the same issue) it stopped happening. I have a RedHat bug out against glibc (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86534), but have not had the testing resources to verify what they thought might be a fix (breaking my production environment again would not go down well). Anything in the logfiles? I was getting assert_uid() failures. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett abartlet@pcug.org.au Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team abartlet@samba.org Student Network Administrator, Hawker College abartlet@hawkerc.net http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20030426/21eca12b/attachment.bin
At 01:23 26/04/2003 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:>On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 23:16, Johan Coenen wrote: > >> > >> IF uid or gid of user > 65.535 > >> AND samba loglevel > 2 > >> THEN I have problems with saving word documents > >> errors on client: "disk full" "read-only" etc... > >> > >Not sure about the log level stuff, but try your recent glibc security >upgrade for the problem :-)Hi Andrew, thanks for the reply. I must admit, the day after we upgraded glibc to 2.2.5-43, we had one site where users suddenly had problems with excel documents. We noticed that that was the only server which had a Samba log level of 3 (all the other had level 2) After lowering the log-level, problems went away, so we didn't investigate it any further. I just downgraded glibc to 2.2.5-34 on our test server, did a rebuild of Samba, but the problem stays the same. If uid > 16bit => assert_uid() failures if gid > 16bit => assert_gid() failures In our production environment: Despite the fact that we have many users who are having every now and then problems with word, we had three "strange" cases: - two users started having problems saving word docs right after they upgraded from off97 to off2000 (both win2000) - one user had the same problem right after he upgraded from Win98 to WinXP (kept the same office version) In these three cases, problems went away after lowering their GID's. Can there be any reason why a change in OS or office-version suddenly triggers a GID problem? Johan