Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "weirdity".
2007 Apr 11
3
Relocating /boot and /
...tition
sda5 - 4Gb swap partition
sda6 - 145Gb / partition
I was thinking about rearranging the disk to a more conventional layout
where /boot is first, swap next, / next and the rest after that. It
probably isn't necessary since the drive runs fine (well, almost - last
night /boot developed a weirdity in its superblock and I had to recover with
the install DVD in rescue mode and using the alternate superblock, but it's
back up and running, having survived the boot fsck), but I was wondering if
anyone had tried something like this before. Besides, having a backup (or
new) /boot might not be...
2017 Jun 10
0
mount.cifs fails with protocol SMBv2.x on a DFS share
...project --
a separate project from samba these days?
Someone on the samba list might know the answers, but if you are having
a problem with the linux mount.cifs command mounting a Windows CIFS share
you might find more help on the linux-cifs list (@vger.kernel.org).
Looking at your dump, I saw a weirdity:
>
> If I do so I can see this in tcpdump:
> ...
> 100.394295512 192.168.23.107 -> 192.168.15.6 SMB2 494 Session Setup
> Request, NTLMSSP_AUTH, User: OFFICE\c.garling
> 100.397795864 192.168.15.6 -> 192.168.23.107 SMB2 142 Session Setup
> Response
> 100.397895000 192...
2017 Jun 09
4
mount.cifs fails with protocol SMBv2.x on a DFS share
Hello list,
a few days ago we migrated our shares to a DFS cluster, also we disabled
SMBv1 protocol. Now we are no longer able to connect to the shares with
our linux workstations. The setup looks like this:
linux workstation -----> AD server (Windows Server 2008 R2) -----> file
server (Windows Server 2016, running in 2008 R2 compat mode)
I have searched the web for a solution on the
2024 Jul 30
11
[Bug 3715] New: safely_chroot is a little too restrictive: noexec or nosuid should be enough
...u and /u is
mounted noexec.
I was pretty much able to just fix the problem on the first attempt
except for I got lost in autoconf; I have a patch available that still
needs to be edited so that autoconf knows what to do. (There's still
some systems lacking the statvfs() call.)
There's one weirdity I haven't been able to explain though. Why is
nodev (to be) required? It's not like an external filesystem; the user
can't *make* devices. But that's what the document says; so that's what
I put back.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the...