search for: scope_onelevel

...dex out of range That is the names.policyid line in below snippet ----------------------------------- res7 = samdb.search(expression="(displayName=Default Domain Policy)", base="CN=Policies,CN=System," + basedn, scope=ldb.SCOPE_ONELEVEL, attrs=["cn","displayName"]) names.policyid = str(res7[0]["cn"]).replace("{","").replace("}","") # dc policy guid res8 = samdb.search(expression="(displayName=Default Domain Controllers Policy)",...

...in below snippet >> >> ----------------------------------- >> res7 = samdb.search(expression="(displayName=Default Domain >> Policy)", >> base="CN=Policies,CN=System," + basedn, >> scope=ldb.SCOPE_ONELEVEL, >> attrs=["cn","displayName"]) >> names.policyid = str(res7[0]["cn"]).replace("{","").replace("}","") The problem is the way the search is being carried out, It is taken from 'find_provision_key_parameters...

...e search would probably be better something like this: >> >> res7 = >> samdb.search(expression="(name={31B2F340-016D-11D2-945F-00C04FB984F9})", >> base="CN=Policies,CN=System," + basedn, >> scope=ldb.SCOPE_ONELEVEL, >> attrs=["cn","displayName"]) >> names.policyid = str(res7[0]["cn"]).replace("{","").replace("}","") >> >> which is the same as: >> >> ldbsearch -H /usr/local/samba/private/sam.ldb -b &g...

...at is the names.policyid line in below snippet > > ----------------------------------- > res7 = samdb.search(expression="(displayName=Default Domain Policy)", > base="CN=Policies,CN=System," + basedn, > scope=ldb.SCOPE_ONELEVEL, > attrs=["cn","displayName"]) > names.policyid = str(res7[0]["cn"]).replace("{","").replace("}","") > # dc policy guid > res8 = samdb.search(expression="(displayName=Default Domain > Controllers...

...;>>> >>>> res7 = >>>> samdb.search(expression="(name={31B2F340-016D-11D2-945F-00C04FB984F9})", >>>> >>>> base="CN=Policies,CN=System," + basedn, >>>> scope=ldb.SCOPE_ONELEVEL, >>>> attrs=["cn","displayName"]) >>>> names.policyid = >>>> str(res7[0]["cn"]).replace("{","").replace("}","") >>>> >>>> which is the same as: >>>> &g...

...n Thu, 2017-12-14 at 18:52 -0600, Arthur Ramsey wrote: > Thanks Andrew, much better than vanilla 4.7.3 but it is still performs > much worse than vanilla 4.7.0 especially for DLZ zones. I understand. The key issue is that to support the wildcards we changed the way we use the database, the SCOPE_ONELEVEL index (compared with SCOPE_BASE used exclusively in the past) over 7000 possible values is the choke point on the database I'm testing with. This is much improved in master, but sadly the primary fix turns out to be the GUID index change (which is too much to backport), rather than (as I had h...

...something like this: >>> >>> res7 = >>> samdb.search(expression="(name={31B2F340-016D-11D2-945F-00C04FB984F9})", >>> >>> base="CN=Policies,CN=System," + basedn, >>> scope=ldb.SCOPE_ONELEVEL, >>> attrs=["cn","displayName"]) >>> names.policyid = >>> str(res7[0]["cn"]).replace("{","").replace("}","") >>> >>> which is the same as: >>> >>> ldbsearch -H...

...772, in <module> ??? names = guess_names_from_current_provision(creds,session,paths) ? File "./scripting/bin/upgradeprovision", line 212, in guess_names_from_current_provision ??? res3= samdb.search(expression="(objectClass=*)",base="CN=Sites,"+configdn, scope=SCOPE_ONELEVEL, attrs=attrs3) _ldb.LdbError: (32, 'No such Base DN: CN=Sites,CN=Configuration,DC=example,DC=com') *********************************************************** Any ideas what I am making wrong? any things to look after? Thanks in advance for helpful pointers! Regards, ? Dirk -- GRATI...

On Fri, 2017-12-15 at 10:16 +1300, Garming Sam via samba wrote: > Hi, > > We've just had another person notice this issue and we're currently > looking into it. If we need someone to test the patch fix, or if we need > more information, we can let you know. > > I've filed a bug as well: > > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13191 Attached is a

Hi there, I was wondering, if there are any more ideas regarding this matter. Have a nice weekend, Alexander On 12. February 2020 at 07:07:02, Andrew Bartlett via samba (samba at lists.samba.org) wrote: I've been busy with other matters, including a serious issue with SCOPE_ONELEVEL searches ( https://gitlab.com/samba-team/samba/-/merge_requests/1125). If this is urgent or critical, then commercial support is the way to go, otherwise I'll assist as able. Sorry, Andrew Bartlett On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 07:01 +0100, Alexander Harm via samba wrote: > Any upd...

..., no offence. I was just wondering if I could get around this issue if I nuke my Samba DCs and start fresh? Regards, Alexander On 12. February 2020 at 07:07:02, Andrew Bartlett via samba (samba at lists.samba.org) wrote: I've been busy with other matters, including a serious issue with SCOPE_ONELEVEL searches ( https://gitlab.com/samba-team/samba/-/merge_requests/1125). If this is urgent or critical, then commercial support is the way to go, otherwise I'll assist as able. Sorry, Andrew Bartlett On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 07:01 +0100, Alexander Harm via samba wrote: > Any upd...

Any update on this one? Is there anything I can do from my side? I?m prepared to nuke my Samba DC?s and start afresh if necessary. Currently I have three sites not picking up changes so I?m getting a bit anxious here? On 10. February 2020 at 19:52:02, Andrew Bartlett (abartlet at samba.org) wrote: Thanks. This is a different issue. I'll continue the thread on-list once I get to work.