search for: undetected

Since upgrading S4 DCs I am see the following message in log.samba - DsCrackNames: Unsupported operation requested: FFFFFFF8DsCrackNames: Unsupported operation requested: FFFFFFF8Unable to fetch value for secret BCKUPKEY_13bb48fc-0844-4736-9972-e26453333856, are we an undetected RODC? DsCrackNames: Unsupported operation requested: FFFFFFF8DsCrackNames: Unsupported operation requested: FFFFFFF8Unable to fetch value for secret BCKUPKEY_13bb48fc-0844-4736-9972-e26453333856, are we an undetected RODC? Unable to fetch value for secret BCKUPKEY_13bb48fc-0844-4736-9972 -e2645...

I upgraded from 4.1.23 to 4.2.12 and am now getting (lots of) messages: Unable to fetch value for secret BCKUPKEY_, are we an undetected RODC? I found an almost identical message (titled: "Update samba4 from 4.1.17 to 4.2.1 failed") on the web from May 22, 2015 at: http://samba.2283325.n4.nabble.com/Update-samba4-from-4-1-17-to-4-2-1-failed-td4686215.html but saw no resolution other than suggestions by Rowland Penny to...

...; wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 10:45 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams via samba > wrote: > > Since upgrading S4 DCs I am see the following message in log.samba - > > The message "Unable to fetch value for secret BCKUPKEY_13bb48fc-0844 > > -4736-9972-e26453333856, are we an undetected RODC?" repeats > > frequently. > > Found <https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11416> ... so I > assume this fix is not in the SERNET packages and I need to upgrade to > 4.3 to make it go away. > > It never made it to 4.2.x because that branch was in ...

...39;s entering a failure case when it hasn't actually failed. https://www.samba.org/samba/patches/ Cheers, Garming On 04/07/16 07:06, Mark Foley wrote: > I upgraded from 4.1.23 to 4.2.12 and am now getting (lots of) messages: > > Unable to fetch value for secret BCKUPKEY_, are we an undetected RODC? > > I found an almost identical message (titled: "Update samba4 from 4.1.17 to 4.2.1 failed") on > the web from May 22, 2015 at: > > http://samba.2283325.n4.nabble.com/Update-samba4-from-4-1-17-to-4-2-1-failed-td4686215.html > > but saw no resolution other than...

Author: rmesta Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Revision: a5e1262c14c8b8b2e86d10d72c8edef705b390f5 Log message: 6346204 NFSv4 client suffers undetected write errors to full file system Files: update: usr/src/uts/common/fs/nfs/nfs4_vnops.c

...THX --Mark -----Original Message----- > To: Mark Foley <mfoley at ohprs.org>, samba at lists.samba.org > From: Garming Sam <garming at catalyst.net.nz> > Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:51:37 +1200 > Subject: Re: [Samba] Unable to fetch value for secret BCKUPKEY_, > are we an undetected RODC? > > If it is that bug that you're referencing, besides obviously upgrading, > you could try to patch it yourself. Whether or not you need to patch > this, probably depends on whether or not your users are actually seeing > issues. All that seems to happen is that it's...

...grading , the samba4 servers becomed very slow and these error logs occured : [2015/04/27 08:09:08.279400, 1] ../source4/rpc_server/backupkey/dcesrv_backupke y.c:1423(bkrp_do_retrieve_server_wrap_key) Unable to fetch value for secret BCKUPKEY_34847c15-efd9-4430-ba82-bf7d3160e9e1 , are we an undetected RODC? [2015/04/27 08:09:08.454487, 1] ../source4/rpc_server/backupkey/dcesrv_backupke y.c:1423(bkrp_do_retrieve_server_wrap_key) Unable to fetch value for secret BCKUPKEY_34847c15-efd9-4430-ba82-bf7d3160e9e1 , are we an undetected RODC? [2015/04/27 08:09:09.494243, 1] ../source4/rpc_server/b...

Hello, [ I've just reported this as https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2116 ] ------------------ rsync-2.6.3 can fail to report a write error. Here's a demonstration, writing to a full partition: You can reproduce it like this: $ echo foo > in $ strace -f -o log rsync in /full/tmp $ grep 'write.*ENOSP' log 4787 write(1, "foo\n", 4) =

dear smbfs maintainers! i sent this mail to you, since i got no answer from sending it to the "M:" entry of SMBFS. _______________ i had problems with setting permissions on a mounted smb file system. therefore i took a look at the smbfs code and a suspicious code part caught my eye. IMHO the patched line can't be correct, because comparing uids to gids doesn't make any sense.

Does software raid 1 compare checksums or otherwise verify that the same bits are coming from both disks during reads? What I'm interested in, is whether bit errors that were somehow undetected by the hardware would be detected by the raid 1 software. Thanks, Nataraj

How 'bout PAM? /usr/ports/security/pam_ldap. If you have machines that can't do PAM, perhaps NIS is the way to go (assuming, of course, you're behind a firewall). You can store login information in LDAP like you want, then use a home-grown script to extract the information to a NIS map. Or, if you have a Solaris 8 machine lying around, you can cut out the middle step and use

...nwanted in most cases since people can add that to the boot message (ctrl-L) if they need it. If all the drivers in POST would do a clear screen, it would be very discomforting and even if syslinux is an exception (being the last one in the row) removing vital messages just before could lead to undetected problems. -- -- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]

This patch set includes two instances where the list iterator variable 'pstate' is implicitly assumed to be valid after the iterator loop. While in pratice that is most likely the case (if 'pstatei'/'args->v0.state' is <= the elements in clk->states), we should explicitly only allow 'pstate' to always point to correct 'nvkm_pstate' structs. That

...may be larger than the remote_window size. Does anybody know why? Perhaps there is a check elsewhere that makes this safe, but I am not seeing it. During problem determination I have observed the value of the remote window does occasionally wrap. When the remote window counter does wrap it goes undetected because Channel.remote_window is an unsigned value. Another item I find confusing is the test in channel_pre_open to decide if the channel's read file descriptor should be turned on in the read fileset. That test includes a check of a variable called limit which is set to Channel.remote_window...

On May 7, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: >> This seems counter intuitive to me, I can understand that C assigned that behavior somewhat arbitrarily to uninitialized global variables, but in LLVM there is explicitly a common linkage attribute to get that behavior. Nothing in the llvm language reference indicates the behavior of a global with the 'internal' linkage attribute

I have a very strange problem I'm hoping someone has encountered already. I've scoured the internet for an answer to this one. My phone company provides no disconnect supervision. Hence I'm forced to use the busydetect feature. I have a TDM400 with two FXO ports. If I call from an internal extension to a landline and then hangup the landline Asterisk detects the busy signal

On May 7, 2010, at 12:39 AM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 6, 2010, at 10:01 PM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > > > I compile these two lines in llc > > > > @tst1 = internal global [4 x i8] zeroinitializer; > > @tst2 = internal global [4 x i8] [i8 0, i8 1, i8 2, i8 3]; >

On 7 May 2010 17:53, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 7, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > > This seems counter intuitive to me, I can understand that C assigned that >> behavior somewhat arbitrarily to uninitialized global variables, but in LLVM >> there is explicitly a common linkage attribute to get that behavior. Nothing >>

...returned failure. > > After consulting with our dynamic linker guru, I don't think there is > a wonderful clean way to do this. I could be missing something, but shouldn't the use of dlsym() be char *err; void *p; if ((err = dlerror())) { error("earlier undetected dlerror: %s\n", err); } p = dlsym(handle, sym); if ((err = dlerror())) { error("dlsym failed: %s\n", err); } return p; The authors of dlsym() realised the return value was overloaded AFAICS. Cheers, Ralph.

Hi all, Will anyone object to (my) adding llvm-config error code check in Makefile.rules? I had errors in target definition which called early abort of llvm-config in Makefile. These went undetected and caused tons of following errors in other modules (because llvm-config failed to generate appropriate cmdline strings for g++). - Yuri