search for: smbd_smb2_first_negprot

...f your help on this! On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:20 PM, lingpanda101 at gmail.com < lingpanda101 at gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/19/2016 3:11 PM, Bill Baird wrote: > >> [2016/04/19 15:04:46.352217, 10, pid=21600, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] >> ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:3068(smbd_smb2_first_negprot) >> smbd_smb2_first_negprot: packet length 102 >> > Everything looks OK on your MS. Since it's only one workstation I'm > certain it's the issue. You want to look for this line in your logs. This > is what you posted from your SMB2 connection. > > [2016/04/1...

...;lingpanda101 at gmail.com> > lingpanda101 at gmail.com <lingpanda101 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 4/19/2016 3:11 PM, Bill Baird wrote: >> >>> [2016/04/19 15:04:46.352217, 10, pid=21600, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] >>> ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:3068(smbd_smb2_first_negprot) >>> smbd_smb2_first_negprot: packet length 102 >>> >> Everything looks OK on your MS. Since it's only one workstation I'm >> certain it's the issue. You want to look for this line in your logs. This >> is what you posted from your SMB2 connection....

...ocol NT LM 0.12 [2016/04/19 14:48:37.738488, 5, pid=21479, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../source3/smbd/negprot.c:691(reply_negprot) negprot index=5 For the system that gets SMB2, I see: [2016/04/19 15:04:46.352217, 10, pid=21600, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:3068(smbd_smb2_first_negprot) smbd_smb2_first_negprot: packet length 102 [2016/04/19 15:04:46.352249, 10, pid=21600, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:646(smb2_validate_sequence_number) smb2_validate_sequence_number: clearing id 0 (position 0) from bitmap [2016/04/19 15:04:46.352269, 10, pid=21600,...

...m> <lingpanda101 at gmail.com > <mailto:lingpanda101 at gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 4/19/2016 3:11 PM, Bill Baird wrote: > > [2016/04/19 15:04:46.352217, 10, pid=21600, effective(0, 0), > real(0, 0)] > ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:3068(smbd_smb2_first_negprot) > smbd_smb2_first_negprot: packet length 102 > > Everything looks OK on your MS. Since it's only one workstation > I'm certain it's the issue. You want to look for this line in your > logs. This is what you posted from your SMB2 connection. > &gt...

...om> >> lingpanda101 at gmail.com <lingpanda101 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/19/2016 3:11 PM, Bill Baird wrote: >>> >>>> [2016/04/19 15:04:46.352217, 10, pid=21600, effective(0, 0), real(0, >>>> 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:3068(smbd_smb2_first_negprot) >>>> smbd_smb2_first_negprot: packet length 102 >>>> >>> Everything looks OK on your MS. Since it's only one workstation I'm >>> certain it's the issue. You want to look for this line in your logs. This >>> is what you posted from yo...

...st_process_create+0x83e> at /usr/local/lib/samba/libsmbd-base-samba4.so > Mar 7 15:18:54 xxxxxx smbd_audit[51710]: #12 0x801acdc8d <smbd_smb2_request_dispatch+0x137d> at /usr/local/lib/samba/libsmbd-base-samba4.so > Mar 7 15:18:54 xxxxxx smbd_audit[51710]: #13 0x801ad5a49 <smbd_smb2_first_negprot+0x4159> at /usr/local/lib/samba/libsmbd-base-samba4.so > Mar 7 15:18:54 xxxxxx smbd_audit[51710]: #14 0x801ad5066 <smbd_smb2_first_negprot+0x3776> at /usr/local/lib/samba/libsmbd-base-samba4.so > Mar 7 15:18:54 xxxxxx smbd_audit[51710]: #15 0x8039cd976 <run_events_poll+0x6...

...smbd_smb2_request_process_notify+816> at /usr/local/lib/samba/libsmbd_base.so ? ?#11 0x81799e47 <smbd_smb2_request_dispatch+3127> at /usr/local/lib/samba/libsmbd_base.so ? ?#12 0x8179b89d <smbd_smb2_send_oplock_break+3309> at /usr/local/lib/samba/libsmbd_base.so ? ?#13 0x8179cda8 <smbd_smb2_first_negprot+5192> at /usr/local/lib/samba/libsmbd_base.so ? ?#14 0x829012cc <run_events_poll+684> at /usr/local/lib/libsmbconf.so.0 ? ?#15 0x82901b0d <event_add_idle+1309> at /usr/local/lib/libsmbconf.so.0 ? ?#16 0x840f1602 <_tevent_loop_once+114> at /usr/local/lib/libtevent.so.0 ? ?#17 0x...

*testparm -v | grep "client min protocol"* client min protocol = CORE On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:50 PM, lingpanda101 at gmail.com < lingpanda101 at gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/19/2016 2:43 PM, Bill Baird wrote: > > I am accessing the new member server. All my other servers are still on > 3.6.x. > > Both settings are set to "default". > > Will look at

...request_process_create+1998> at /usr/local/lib/samba/libsmbd_base.so #29 0x801853fdc <smbd_smb2_request_dispatch+4588> at /usr/local/lib/samba/libsmbd_base.so #30 0x801857f25 <smbd_smb2_send_oplock_break+6277> at /usr/local/lib/samba/libsmbd_base.so #31 0x80185bf96 <smbd_smb2_first_negprot+16214> at /usr/local/lib/samba/libsmbd_base.so #32 0x802da5446 <run_events_poll+1718> at /usr/local/lib/libsmbconf.so.0 #33 0x802da6244 <event_add_idle+2372> at /usr/local/lib/libsmbconf.so.0 #34 0x80492b602 <_tevent_loop_once+114> at /usr/local/lib/libtevent.so.0...

...ram/loadparm.c:2223(lp_file_list_changed) lp_file_list_changed() file /etc/samba/smb.conf -> /etc/samba/smb.conf last mod_time: Wed Aug 26 09:48:50 2020 [2020/08/26 09:53:02.414769, 10, pid=2553, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:3463(smbd_smb2_process_negprot) smbd_smb2_first_negprot: packet length 102 [2020/08/26 09:53:02.414809, 10, pid=2553, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:660(smb2_validate_sequence_number) smb2_validate_sequence_number: clearing id 0 (position 0) from bitmap [2020/08/26 09:53:02.414828, 10, pid=2553, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)]...

Mandi! Rowland penny via samba In chel di` si favelave... > Even though your users may have the same username in AD as in the NT4-style > domain, they are different users, so a few thoughts. You have 'map to guest > = bad user', so I take it you must have 'guest ok = yes' set in the shares > (you haven't shown us the shares), so try changing 'bad user' to

Hello, I have a question because POSIX ACL with SMB2 max protocol does not work properly.Did you test VFS xattr acls with SMB2 max protocol? Is it working corectly? Best regards/Adrian Berlin --