similar to: NAS SMB server not accepting packets > 65k size. Does SMB2->Negotiate_Protocol_Response->Max_Write_Size = 65536 Matters?

I noticed there was Bug 12808 against 4.6.3 ( if I read it right ) about smblcient doesn't handle STATUS_NOT_SUPPORTED gracefully for FSCTL_VALIDATE_NEGOTIATE_INFO. We are currently updating to 4.6.6 and I do not see it in smbXcli_base.c. I see the fix was done in 5/30/2017. Is this something that is still needed, and will be added in future releases ? I would like to know whether I should

====================================================== "Change your thoughts and you change your world." Norman Vincent Peale ====================================================== Release Announcements --------------------- This is the latest stable release of the Samba 4.5 release series. Changes since 4.5.10: --------------------- o Jeremy Allison <jra at

====================================================== "Change your thoughts and you change your world." Norman Vincent Peale ====================================================== Release Announcements --------------------- This is the latest stable release of the Samba 4.5 release series. Changes since 4.5.10: --------------------- o Jeremy Allison <jra at

Release Announcements --------------------- This is the latest stable release of the Samba 4.14 release series. Important Notes =============== There have been a few regressions in the security release 4.14.10: o CVE-2020-25717: A user on the domain can become root on domain members. https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2020-25717.html ????????????????? PLEASE [RE-]READ!

Release Announcements --------------------- This is the latest stable release of the Samba 4.14 release series. Important Notes =============== There have been a few regressions in the security release 4.14.10: o CVE-2020-25717: A user on the domain can become root on domain members. https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2020-25717.html ????????????????? PLEASE [RE-]READ!

Release Announcements --------------------- This is the latest stable release of the Samba 4.15 release series. Important Notes =============== There have been a few regressions in the security release 4.15.2: o CVE-2020-25717: A user on the domain can become root on domain members. https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2020-25717.html ????????????????? PLEASE [RE-]READ! ?????????????????

Release Announcements --------------------- This is the latest stable release of the Samba 4.15 release series. Important Notes =============== There have been a few regressions in the security release 4.15.2: o CVE-2020-25717: A user on the domain can become root on domain members. https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2020-25717.html ????????????????? PLEASE [RE-]READ! ?????????????????

Resending it.. Looks like it bounced on the first time. On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Partha Sarathi <partha at exablox.com> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I tried to set quota(soft limit and hard limit) on a share from > Windows2k12R2 and I noticed "NT_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER" error for the > SMB2 setinfo request. Attached the packet capture for your reference.

Hello, I was reading about secure Dialect negotiation to prevent man-in-middle to downgrade dialects & capabilities. _https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/openspecification/2012/06/28/smb3-secure-dialect-negotiation/_ I wanted to ask, is there any option to disable SMB2 to do dialect renegotiation as present in Windows8 clients, as they can control using RequireSecureNegotiate. -- Thanks Amit

Thanks Jeremy for the comment on unwanted code. Please find the updated patch. Regards, --Partha On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 02:33:48PM -0700, Partha Sarathi wrote: > > Thanks Jeremy. > > > > Please find the updated patch for review. > > More changes (sorry). This code: > > + if

Hi 2013/2/27 Jos? Luis Artuch <artuch at speedy.com.ar> > > At least here, with loop and preload the problem persists. > I think it's a good option to use more than one alternative, like you > have on your website: > > <source src="http://www.radiogalere.org:8080/galere.mp3" > type='audio/mpeg'> > <source

Hello all. I'm having a bit of trouble with login scripts. Whenever a workstation logs in, the first line in the batch file gets run, but then a "Batch file missing" error is displayed. I've checked the permissions on the file and changed them to 777 and it still doesn't work. I'm using samba 2.2.2. Any ideas? Here's my config snippit: logon path =

I was learning about the different FS exists. I was working on systems that ReiserFS was the star but since there is no longer support from the creator there are other consolidations to be done. I want to ask about couple FS options. EXT4 which is amazing for one node but for more it's another story. I have heard about GFS2 and GlusterFS and read the docs and official materials from RH on

My last sentence still aplies to the bitrate. We usually use 80kbps, but sometimes we have used 64kbps (e.g. when sourcing from a cellular network). With music you can get the difference, but with voice there's no need to use more bitrate unless you want more quality in the audio itself. -- Xabier Oneca_,,_ El 27/02/2013 15:19, "Jos? Luis Artuch" <artuch at speedy.com.ar>

On 06/05/18 00:21, Andres Freund wrote: > That's what I do (using Orc to JIT parts of SQL queries). By default I > have the debug build of postgres linked against debug LLVM w/ > assertions, and the optimized build against an optimized LLVM wo/ > assertions (albeit with symbols). I've tried a builld with assertions off and it has only a relatively minor impact (a 10% drop in

Hello, I am using dovecot with mdbox+sis and I notice an ever increasing disk space usage since I converted mailboxes from Maildir to mdboxes. I have checked with a user and while it actually uses only 65K, his mdbox files on disk are more than 6G. The backup of his mailbox is just 64K. Any suggestions ? Below are some relevant commands: [root at mail ~]# doveadm quota get -u test Quota

On 05/05/18 17:58, Andres Freund wrote: > You're building LLVM with assertions enabled > (-DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON). > Some of those are fairly expensive... > Is there another way to get LLVM to check the correctness of my IR without the assertions? That's what I'm assuming I need the flag for (it's been a long time since I experimented with it) If there is no way

Hi, On 2018-05-06 00:19:42 +0200, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > On 05/05/18 17:58, Andres Freund wrote: > > You're building LLVM with assertions enabled > > (-DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON). > > Some of those are fairly expensive... > > > > Is there another way to get LLVM to check the correctness of my IR > without the assertions? That's what I'm

Dear developement team, I want to share a massive storage casted with Ceph by samba with windows workstations. All works well. My problem so is that in windows the ceph storage size statistics are wrong. Instead of seeing a 44TB hard drive I see a 176GB hard drive. Under linux that issue doesn't show. The size are properly reported. I investigated around and it seems that the problem

I'm having issues of my compiler, and JIT execution, of LLVM IR being rather slow. It's accounting for the vast majority of my full compilation time.  I'm trying to figure out why this is happening, since it's becoming an impediment.  (Note: by slow I mean about 3s of time for only about 2K of my front-end code, 65K lines of LLVM-IR) Using valgrind I see some functions which seem