similar to: Do Unix extensions still work with SMB3?

> > Quick question - does Samba server still support Unix extensions when > > connecting over SMB3? > > FYI, when we do finalize the UNIX extensions, at least for > the Samba implementation, we're not going to allow clients > to create "real" symlinks on the server - only SMB-followable > symlinks. Allowing clients to create real server symlinks as > in

Hello, I am using Samba version 4.2.0rc4-GIT-4701d74. When using a connection in protocol smb2 or smb3, the unix client says symlinks are not supported, for example: # mount //ip.addr/Programs ./tmp -o vers=3.0 # cd tmp # ln -s bla blub ln: failed to create symbolic link ?blub?: Operation not supported # mount //ip.addr/Programs on /mnt/tmp type cifs

> > Unless you upload a network capture of you mounting and doing the ls -lR > on the client it's hard to say what really goes on. I understand you > might not want to make it public.. but if you do > This is the last thing I'll try after I've exhausted all the other options. How are you mounting your share (which mount options)? > Something weird is going on with

Hi, I want to use the SMB3 POSIX extensions in the latest Samba (with SMB3.1.1, vers=3.1.1). By following the user manual, I have added the "posix" mount option when mounting, but it shows the following error messages. Error messages: [xxxxx] CIFS VFS: Server does not support mounting with posix SMB3.11 extensions. [xxxxx] CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code = -95 Mount option:

The SMB3 POSIX extensions is different from the old Unix extensions. The Unix extensions can only support vers=1.0, but the new SMB3 POSIX extensions can support SMB3.1.1, vers=3.1.1. You can check this 2018 presentation slides: https://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/SDC/2018/presentations/SMB/Steve_French_SMB311.pdf Page 12 shows that POSIX extensions has been added. Page 22 shows that SMB3

Hello, How secure is SMB3 over Internet? I see that Microsoft Azure is doing SMB3 shares over internet so they seem to think it's secure. Does the SAMBA team recommend this type of scenario OR do they recommend instead running it over a SSH tunnel/VPN?

We have a 10G network with a mix of Windows 10 and MacOS 10.12 machines, and a CentOS 7 machine. Copying large files "fast" from the CentOS machine to Windows, using SMB2 or SMB3 fails almost every time, at the end of the copy. - With SMB1, it seems to work, but is much slower. - Copying to a smb share on a Mac seems to work, but is also much slower. - Using a normal Gigabit network

Hi all, Behavior described in this email is identical whether I try to mount at 192.168.100.2, my desktop and location of my Samba server, or 192.168.100.239, my laptop that is remote from my desktop with Samba server... I want to mount a share defined on my Linux desktop, on my Linux laptop, as a better alternative than sshfs or NFS. I want this mount to happen as version 2.x or 3.x, not as

Hi Jeremy, Hi Steve, Hi Ronnie, thanks for your replies and the profound discussion. I think, it's best to demonstrate my problem case along an real world example: The following log of a console sesssion shows how I am doing the mounts on behalf Linux Kernel CIFS-FS Module on the client side against a Samba 4.5 file server (both running on Debian Stretch 9.8) via SMB/CIFS resp. SMB2 protocol:

Since I do not see my last messages in the samba mail archive (I replied myself), here's the last one I sent with some more information (so hopefully they arrive now for everybody?): I just found out this is not only happening on the osx clients by mounting the share on the server: All this below happens on an linux arch server mounting the own share: mount //ip.addr/Programs ./tmp -o

Well, apparently there WAS a change on the Windows Server, which only affected new samba versions I was able to fix my issue by using this patch: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12776 Can this be officially fixed please? >-----Original Message----- >From: Lange Norbert >Sent: Dienstag, 08. August 2017 10:04 >To: samba at lists.samba.org >Subject: Smbclient cant

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 09:03:41AM -0800, Jeremy Allison via samba wrote: > > Check out the latest cifsfs code. I think Steve > and Aurelian and Ronnie added an ioctl for this. > > I'm here at Vault in Boston with Steve, I'll ask > him :-). Steve says there are two utilities in Linux, getcifsacl and setcifsacl that use a custom ioctl inside the Linux cifsfs kernel

Dear Jeremy, thanks for your instant reply. :-) Along with Linux native getfacl/fetfacl, I also tested getcifsacl/setcifsacl (for sure thoroughly ;-)). Unfortunately, these CIFS client tools seem to have been designed as part of the "old" CIFS Unix Extensions, working only for SMB/CIFS mounts, and are not supposed to work with SMB2/SMB3 mounts, as I guess. During my tests, the

Sorry for a rather 'unifornative' subject, but i've little o no clue on this. I'm using at work 'pam_mount' with a rather standard configuration to mount via CIFS/SMB user's home directory, from a samba AD member server. This configuration is a bit 'old' (mint sonya, AKA Ubuntu 16.04 as a client, so samba 4.3; debian and samba 4.8 as a server), but work

## QUESTION I am sharing a 120GB folder with lots of files via Samba on a LAN (1Gbps connection). 1) Doing an `ls -lR` on the server (on this folder) takes ~32 seconds, compared with **72 minutes** on the client. Is this difference in performance expected (due to network and protocol overhead)? 2) While the client is executing an `ls -lR`, one smbd process on the server uses about 30-40% of a

Hello, I'm using the latest git 4.2.0 samba version (4.2.0rc4-GIT-93b73bf, to get latest vfs_fruit module). I noticed the following strange behavior with OSX clients (10.10.1, 10.10.2 beta): When they connect using either smb 3.0 or 2.1 (verified on the server with `smbstatus` and the `version` column `SMB3_00` or `SMB2_10` respectively), symbolic links pointing at non existent files are not

I have a classic NT4 domain with the PDC also the wins server. With the recent ransomware problem, we're trying to remove SMB1 and below protocols. However when I do this, the browse list is gone. Hosts can access properly the shares, but they have to know exactly \\machine\share in order to to connect. The same thing from a linux client: smbclient -L {PDC} -m SMB2 Domain=[{MYDOMAIN}]

Hi there I set up a POC domain with multiple DCs, multiple remote sites and samba shares. This POC is a simulation of a whole samba3 domain migration. Users, and groups have been imported from the older domain to the new one. Here's the setup: ("Remote sites" are actually different subnets on the same location for the POC) *Main Site*: DC1 (RHEL7 - samba 4.6.4) DC2 (RHEL7 -

Hi Team, Workaround for CVE-2017-12151 :- client max protocol = NT1 and CVE-2017-12163 :- server min protocol = SMB2_02 are contradicting to each other. CVE-2017-12151 impacts on SMB3 protocol but workaound suggst to use NT1. I have below queries regarding this. Is SMB2 protocol also impacted by CVE-2017-12151 ? Can i use client max protocol = SMB2 so that it does not contradict with

Thanks for the reply. I was checking this with several IT professionals and the consensus was that it should never be exposed over the internet (even SMB3.0) and they all recommended to use it over SSH or VPN. A couple of people said there are more security professionals venting/using/supporting SSH which is why they recommend using that. I was just wondering, would this just be the leftover