search for: smbd_smb2_io_handler

...usershare_acl=S-1-1-0:F > guest ok = yes > > > > We were able to reproduce the incident in dev. Here are the log entries with log level set to 10, this repeats over and over: [2016/08/31 08:00:40.640956, 10, pid=6463, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:3539(smbd_smb2_io_handler) smbd_smb2_request idx[1] of 5 vectors [2016/08/31 08:00:40.641051, 10, pid=6463, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:654(smb2_validate_sequence_number) smb2_validate_sequence_number: clearing id 66899 (position 1363) from bitmap [2016/08/31 08:00:40.641074, 10, pid=6463,...

...ons = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=131072 SO_SNDBUF=131072 ctdbd socket = /var/run/ctdb/ctdbd.socket log level = 2 security = user I add some logs, found when the send queue is more than the max, it won’t allocate memory to the state->req in smbd_smb2_request_next_incoming function. Then, the smbd_smb2_io_handler function mark the fd to not readable because state->req == NULL, and never mark it to readable again. Then the Request Expiration Timer will break the connection. I don’t know why the fd is marked to readable when the send queue is more than the max. Or why mark the fd readable but not allocate...

...mb2_server.c:874(smb2_set_operation_credit) smb2_set_operation_credit: requested 1, charge 1, granted 1, current possible/max 482/512, total granted/max/low/range 31/8192/13/31 [2014/03/28 15:41:16.618571, 10, pid=4038, effective(3000019, 100), real(3000019, 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:3241(smbd_smb2_io_handler) smbd_smb2_request idx[1] of 9 vectors [2014/03/28 15:41:16.618646, 10, pid=4038, effective(3000019, 100), real(3000019, 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:621(smb2_validate_sequence_number) smb2_validate_sequence_number: clearing id 13 (position 13) from bitmap [2014/03/28 15:41:16.618686, 10,...

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:41:53AM -0400, Jeff Hodge via samba wrote: > > During an ubuntu 14.04 update samba was updated from 4.1.6 to 4.3.9. We > > had no problems with any windows system accessing the server prior to the > > upgrade to 4.3.9. It seems to affect access to the entire samba

...d/smb2_server.c:874(smb2_set_operation_credit)? smb2_set_operation_credit: requested 1, charge 1, granted 1, current possible/max 482/512, total granted/max/low/range 31/8192/3287320/31 [2014/09/24 16:15:04.433078, 10, pid=2495, effective(547, 500), real(547, 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:3257(smbd_smb2_io_handler)? smbd_smb2_request idx[1] of 5 vectors [2014/09/24 16:15:04.433153, 10, pid=2495, effective(547, 500), real(547, 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:621(smb2_validate_sequence_number)? smb2_validate_sequence_number: clearing id 3287320 (position 2328) from bitmap [2014/09/24 16:15:04.433242, 10, p...

...smb2_server.c:908(smb2_set_operation_credit) smb2_set_operation_credit: requested 1, charge 1, granted 1, current possible/max 482/512, total granted/max/low/range 31/8192/23/31 [2016/05/30 17:06:26.606649, 10, pid=21947, effective(10011, 10031), real(10011, 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:3686(smbd_smb2_io_handler) smbd_smb2_request idx[1] of 5 vectors Is this a known problem and is there something I can do about this? Best regards Andreas

...egprot.c:744(reply_negprot) Selected protocol SMB 2.??? [2020/08/26 09:53:02.417349, 5, pid=2553, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../source3/smbd/negprot.c:746(reply_negprot) negprot index=7 [2020/08/26 09:53:02.418020, 10, pid=2553, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../source3/smbd/smb2_server.c:3860(smbd_smb2_io_handler) smbd_smb2_request idx[1] of 5 vectors [2020/08/26 09:53:02.418050, 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 1 (position 1) from bitmap [2020/08/26 09:53:02.418076, 10, pid=2553, effect...

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