similar to: Behavior of cifsacl

Hello, (I'm reposting this after my first attempt about 25 minutes ago has not come through to me. I am leaving out the looooooong debug log dump, in case the listserv didn't like the massive content, but it will be provided upon request.) I have a RHEL 6.5 server that was configured to use Samba 3.6.9-167 to authenticate against a Windows 2008 R2 Active Directory domain. The

Hello, I have a RHEL 6.5 server that was configured to use Samba 3.6.9-167 to authenticate against a Windows 2008 R2 Active Directory domain. The authentication was working fine, but we needed users to log in to this RHEL box with their AD credentials and then access files stored on a Windows file server CIFS share globally mounted on the RHEL box. As such, we added the "cifsacl"

On 9/25/20 12:23 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: > On 25/09/2020 17:15, Ken Bass via samba wrote: >> On 9/25/20 5:14 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: >>> Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >>>> Can you please expand on this, I am confused as to what you are >>>> suggesting.? If 'getent pass' works properly and shows no

On 25/09/2020 10:14, Aur?lien Aptel via samba wrote: > Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >> Can you please expand on this, I am confused as to what you are >> suggesting.? If 'getent pass' works properly and shows no >> overlap/confusion, this seems to be related to cifsacl. > It's still hard to say at this point. > > cifs.idmap

Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: > Can you please expand on this, I am confused as to what you are > suggesting.? If 'getent pass' works properly and shows no > overlap/confusion, this seems to be related to cifsacl. It's still hard to say at this point. cifs.idmap logs messages in the syslog. Can you try mounting with cifsacl, then look at logs

On 25/09/2020 17:15, Ken Bass via samba wrote: > On 9/25/20 5:14 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: >> Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >>> Can you please expand on this, I am confused as to what you are >>> suggesting.? If 'getent pass' works properly and shows no >>> overlap/confusion, this seems to be related to cifsacl. >>

I'm trying to replace an old Windows 2000 server that is current set up with a number of open anonymous shares used by a legacy application that must remain in production for a few more years. I spent a few hours trying to create anonymous shares on a 2008 R2 box but gave up. My next idea was to use Samba to create an anonymous share, and following this quick-n-dirty HowTo:

On 24/09/2020 17:18, Ken Bass via samba wrote: > On 9/24/20 12:10 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: >> On 24/09/2020 16:58, Ken Bass via samba wrote: >>> On 9/24/20 11:51 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: >>>> The request-keys config looks right. >>>> >>>> You can check if winbind is properly configured trying to map with the >>>> winbind

Rowland penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: > 'S-1-5-18' is SYSTEM and from the looks of it, neither cifs.idmap or > winbind maps it on a Unix domain member (it does map on a Samba DC). It > is hard to understand from the manpages, does cifsacls use the same ID's > as Winbind, or does it calculate its own ? * cifsacl is the mount option. * When

On 9/24/20 11:51 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: > The request-keys config looks right. > > You can check if winbind is properly configured trying to map with the > winbind CLI client called wbinfo. For example: > > # wbinfo -i NUC\\administrator > NUC\administrator:*:20501:20514::/home/NUC/administrator:/bin/bash > ^^^^^ ^^^^^ > uid

On 9/24/20 1:06 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: > OK, you are using users & groups in the 1000-29999 range, why ? could > it be that you have the same users in /etc/passwd and AD ? On my Linux installs, I allow for a 'local' account with user id 1000. That is the only local account and is used for installing the OS (or in case AD is down). All other user/group accounts are

On 9/25/20 5:14 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: > Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >> Can you please expand on this, I am confused as to what you are >> suggesting.? If 'getent pass' works properly and shows no >> overlap/confusion, this seems to be related to cifsacl. > It's still hard to say at this point. > > cifs.idmap logs

On 9/24/20 12:10 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: > On 24/09/2020 16:58, Ken Bass via samba wrote: >> On 9/24/20 11:51 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: >>> The request-keys config looks right. >>> >>> You can check if winbind is properly configured trying to map with the >>> winbind CLI client called wbinfo. For example: >>> >>> # wbinfo -i

On 9/24/20 8:53 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: > Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >> I installed a new Ubuntu 20.4 LTS system (smbd 4.11.6) . Initially I >> tried using the SSSD and 'realm' to join the domain. Everything worked >> similar to my Centos 7 install and I thought I was finished. >> >> The one thing not working is? cifs

I installed a new Ubuntu 20.4 LTS system (smbd 4.11.6) . Initially I tried using the SSSD and 'realm' to join the domain. Everything worked similar to my Centos 7 install and I thought I was finished. The one thing not working is? cifs shares showing the proper id mapping. Based on some online posts, including from Rowland, I got rid of SSSD and configured samba/winbind only. Lots of

We've had a number of changes since the last release, and we have some other upcoming kernel changes that might require corresponding cifs-utils changes. So it's probably as good a time as any for a new release. Highlights: + fix for a minor security issue that can corrupt the mtab + new getcifsacl/setcifsacl tools that allow you to fetch and set raw Windows ACLs via an xattr. + a

further testing, log reading and googling has revealed further possible problem sources... with ipv6? my syslog shows the following errors: --- Mar 12 18:08:10 ADServer samba[2161]: [2015/03/12 18:08:10.134418, 0] ../source4/smbd/server.c:488(binary_smbd_main) Mar 12 18:08:10 ADServer samba[2161]: samba: using 'standard' process model Mar 12 18:08:10 ADServer samba[2238]: [2015/03/12

Just updated a DC from 4.1.6 to 4.1.7. After the update, it appears to be unable to bind any listening ports with the error NT_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER_MIX. This is on CentOS 6.5, running samba 4.1.7 RPMs from sernet. Just as a test, I did a brand new samba-tool provision, and still get the same results when starting, so I don't think it's anything in my configuration, unless there

On 9/24/20 8:53 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: > Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >> I installed a new Ubuntu 20.4 LTS system (smbd 4.11.6) . Initially I >> tried using the SSSD and 'realm' to join the domain. Everything worked >> similar to my Centos 7 install and I thought I was finished. >> >> The one thing not working is? cifs

G'day Guys, I've hit a snag. After using S4 from Alpha, beta, rc, 4.0.1..16 with success, I wanted to upgrade to the 4.1 series. However, after compiling, installing, and provisioning, with no errors, samba4 won't start correctly. I did a few tests by installing from scratch, on the same server each of the following versions (4.0.17, 4.0.18, 4.0.19, and 4.1.9), and got the same