On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 07:58:32PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:> > > Am 06.01.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Andreas Maier: > >Am 06.01.2016 um 19:28 schrieb Jeremy Allison: > >>Can't reproduce this on latest 4.3.x (and I just tried). We did have > >>such a bug, but I remember fixing it :-). What Samba version is > >>running on the Synology ? > > > >Jeremy, > >The smbd version is 4.1.18, according to the NOS value shown in > >/proc/fs/cifs/DebugData on the client side, and according to "smbd -V" > >on the server side. > > > >I have no control over the samba level on the server side (other than > >upgrading the Synology firmware). So if this has been fixed in a version > >after 4.1.18, it would be good to know for sure, then I can create a > >request for Synology to upgrade their included samba version > > well, the latest 4.1.x is 4.1.22 according to > https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/No, latest Samba is : 4.3.3 security release. We also released 4.2.7, 4.1.22 at the same time.
Am 06.01.2016 um 20:10 schrieb Jeremy Allison:> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 07:58:32PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> >> Am 06.01.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Andreas Maier: >>> Am 06.01.2016 um 19:28 schrieb Jeremy Allison: >>>> Can't reproduce this on latest 4.3.x (and I just tried). We did have >>>> such a bug, but I remember fixing it :-). What Samba version is >>>> running on the Synology ? >>> >>> Jeremy, >>> The smbd version is 4.1.18, according to the NOS value shown in >>> /proc/fs/cifs/DebugData on the client side, and according to "smbd -V" >>> on the server side. >>> >>> I have no control over the samba level on the server side (other than >>> upgrading the Synology firmware). So if this has been fixed in a version >>> after 4.1.18, it would be good to know for sure, then I can create a >>> request for Synology to upgrade their included samba version >> >> well, the latest 4.1.x is 4.1.22 according to >> https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/ > > No, latest Samba is : 4.3.3 security release.i know that by running samba-4.3.3-0.fc23.x86_64 but i talked about the minor version of 4.1.x> We also released 4.2.7, 4.1.22 at the same timeso 4.1.x is supported and Synology as nearly any other commercial "blackbox builder" don't care about updates -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20160106/48c3c83b/signature.sig>
Am 06.01.2016 um 20:10 schrieb Jeremy Allison:> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 07:58:32PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 06.01.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Andreas Maier: >>> Am 06.01.2016 um 19:28 schrieb Jeremy Allison: >>>> Can't reproduce this on latest 4.3.x (and I just tried). We did have >>>> such a bug, but I remember fixing it :-). What Samba version is >>>> running on the Synology ? >>> Jeremy, >>> The smbd version is 4.1.18, according to the NOS value shown in >>> /proc/fs/cifs/DebugData on the client side, and according to "smbd -V" >>> on the server side. >>> >>> I have no control over the samba level on the server side (other than >>> upgrading the Synology firmware). So if this has been fixed in a version >>> after 4.1.18, it would be good to know for sure, then I can create a >>> request for Synology to upgrade their included samba version >> well, the latest 4.1.x is 4.1.22 according to >> https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/ > No, latest Samba is : 4.3.3 security release. > > We also released 4.2.7, 4.1.22 at the same time. >Jeremy, I checked the WHATSNEW.txt file of 4.3.3 and 4.1.22, but could not find anything that is related to this behavior. There is a fix for CVE-2015-5252 (Insufficient symlink verification in smbd), could that be the solution to the cannot-delete-broken-symlink behavior in addition? Andy
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 08:33:12PM +0100, Andreas Maier wrote:> Am 06.01.2016 um 20:10 schrieb Jeremy Allison: > >On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 07:58:32PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> > >>Am 06.01.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Andreas Maier: > >>>Am 06.01.2016 um 19:28 schrieb Jeremy Allison: > >>>>Can't reproduce this on latest 4.3.x (and I just tried). We did have > >>>>such a bug, but I remember fixing it :-). What Samba version is > >>>>running on the Synology ? > >>>Jeremy, > >>>The smbd version is 4.1.18, according to the NOS value shown in > >>>/proc/fs/cifs/DebugData on the client side, and according to "smbd -V" > >>>on the server side. > >>> > >>>I have no control over the samba level on the server side (other than > >>>upgrading the Synology firmware). So if this has been fixed in a version > >>>after 4.1.18, it would be good to know for sure, then I can create a > >>>request for Synology to upgrade their included samba version > >>well, the latest 4.1.x is 4.1.22 according to > >>https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/ > >No, latest Samba is : 4.3.3 security release. > > > >We also released 4.2.7, 4.1.22 at the same time. > > > Jeremy, > I checked the WHATSNEW.txt file of 4.3.3 and 4.1.22, but could not > find anything that is related to this behavior.No, it's a security release only.> There is a fix for CVE-2015-5252 (Insufficient symlink verification > in smbd), could that be the solution to the > cannot-delete-broken-symlink behavior in addition?No, that wasn't a security bug and wasn't what was fixed. The bug you're having was already fixed in 4.3.x. Go to bugzilla.samba.org and search for bugs with 'symlink' in the title. You should be able to find the one which will give you the date and version number containing the fix.
On 06/01/16 19:17, Reindl Harald wrote:> > > Am 06.01.2016 um 20:10 schrieb Jeremy Allison: >> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 07:58:32PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> >>> >>> Am 06.01.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Andreas Maier: >>>> Am 06.01.2016 um 19:28 schrieb Jeremy Allison: >>>>> Can't reproduce this on latest 4.3.x (and I just tried). We did have >>>>> such a bug, but I remember fixing it :-). What Samba version is >>>>> running on the Synology ? >>>> >>>> Jeremy, >>>> The smbd version is 4.1.18, according to the NOS value shown in >>>> /proc/fs/cifs/DebugData on the client side, and according to "smbd -V" >>>> on the server side. >>>> >>>> I have no control over the samba level on the server side (other than >>>> upgrading the Synology firmware). So if this has been fixed in a >>>> version >>>> after 4.1.18, it would be good to know for sure, then I can create a >>>> request for Synology to upgrade their included samba version >>> >>> well, the latest 4.1.x is 4.1.22 according to >>> https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/ >> >> No, latest Samba is : 4.3.3 security release. > > i know that by running samba-4.3.3-0.fc23.x86_64 > but i talked about the minor version of 4.1.x > >> We also released 4.2.7, 4.1.22 at the same time > > so 4.1.x is supported and Synology as nearly any other commercial > "blackbox builder" don't care about updates > >The OP has just confirmed that he has only altered the smb.conf indirectly via the synology interface, yet there are multiple lines in his smb .conf *that do not appear in man smb.conf*. I get the feeling that synology has heavily patched their version of Samba and who knows what they have done? I suggested that he approached synology for help, it still may be the best thing to do, unless Jeremy has access to what synology has done to Samba. Rowland
Am 06.01.2016 um 20:17 schrieb Reindl Harald:> so 4.1.x is supported and Synology as nearly any other commercial > "blackbox builder" don't care about updatesReinhard, That is not true in the way you have phrased it: The latest Synology firmware is DSM 5.2-5644 Update 2, relased on 2015-12-01. The samba 4.1.8 that is included in that level has been released on 2015-05-12. You may argue that 6.5 months are too long, but it is definitely not "they don't care about updates" and IMO it is not actually bad. If you look at current Linux distributions, you will see much worse delays (e.g. on RHEL). Andy