similar to: per share way to not follow msdfs links

Chad W Seys <cwseys at physics.wisc.edu> writes: >> Yep, sounds like a bug indeed. You still have the option to edit the smb.conf >> on the server side if you want to use smb2+. > > Good to keep in mind. > I'm speculating leaving 'nodfs' out of smb2+ was purposeful. Originally > it was a workaround for Samba 3.something . Maybe the cifs authors were

> Which smb version are you using (mount option)? Support for DFS on smb2+ > was only added in linux 4.11. smbstatus shows the connection as NT1. DFS links do work like this: serverA_msdfsrootYES => serverB_msdfsrootNO But not like this: serverA_msdfsrootYES => serverB_msdfsrootYES Somehow the destination having 'msdfsroot yes' prevents the cifs kernel module from

Hello, >> Can more than one server have a share with 'msdfs root = yes'? Or >> can there be only one root? (Setting 'msdfs root = yes' on shares on > > yes Thanks! It works great for all clients* except the linux kernel (v4.9) mount, which was what led me astray. Any idea if this works in more recent kernels? If not where do I wish list this. :)

(Let's keep this on the list) Aurélien Aptel via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: > Chad William Seys <cwseys at physics.wisc.edu> writes: >> Somehow the destination having 'msdfsroot yes' prevents the cifs kernel >> module from following the link. I've taken a look at your traces and right off the bat I see things like this: [...]

Hi Aurélien, is there some documentation around where I can read about that? Where can I find the information, that I need Kernel 4.11 or above to get DFS with SMB2.0 / 2.1 / 3.0 and above working? Regards, Christian Am 12.06.2017 um 12:46 schrieb Aurélien Aptel: > Hi Christian, > > Christian Garling via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >> a few days ago we

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Dale Schroeder < dale at briannassaladdressing.com> wrote: > > > Try the "vers=3.0" option. That's what fixed mine. > > I suspect my old version of cifs-utils doesn't understand that option. Note the output says "vers=3.0,ver=1": mount.cifs --verbose //192.168.254.35/projects /mnt/smb -o

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

This issue is reproducible for this customer and a couple of others. We execute the smbclient command the same way for each instance. The null user name is valid syntax sent from the smbclient. When we send the command " smbclient -c 'cd <dir>; ls' ", samba code executes starting with Negotiate Protocol Request, and onward. I'm guessing this could be a DFS issue, but

Hi, Is there a place where I can specify defaults options a for "mount -t cifs"? I would like to change the default protocol version to vers=2.1 Is there something like a cifs.conf or such...? MJ

Good Day, We use a lot of DFS Shares (Windows) across our Linux Servers. The DFS Shares are setup in a Cluster. Over the weekend we did a DR excercise which included shutting down one of the Servers that hosted the DFS Shares. What we found is that any Linux Server that had associated itself with the DFS Server that was shutdown did not try and connect to the remaining Server that was up. Is

Good Day, We experience the following when we have outages or perform disaster recovery exercises. Our DFS Shares come from a Windows cluster with 2 servers, each one in a different location. When the server that we have active connections to goes offline, the server has an issue connecting to the second server. This even happens under a controlled shutdown and startup situation. If we

I am wondering if anyone has had a chance to look at bug 12518? This is the context of the message: Wireshark trace gives a STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER when running smbclient -c 'cd <dir>;ls' as a standalone program. This is a customer issue. We cannot recreate this issue so we're looking for why this may be happening. From the trace you'll see multiple sessions with

Hi, I rarely deal with kerberos but everytime I do it's painful... I have a Windows Server 2016 VM at foo-ad.foo.com. It has the AD role and it owns the FOO.COM domain. I added a *AD* account FOO\aaptel%aaptel. PS C:\share> get-aduser aaptel DistinguishedName : CN=aaptel,CN=Users,DC=foo,DC=com Enabled : True GivenName : Name :

"Tompkins, Michael via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: > I'm wondering if anyone else has any feedback on this or needs anymore info ? Can you provide the output of the failing command with full debug messages (-d10)? -- Aurélien Aptel / SUSE Labs Samba Team GPG: 1839 CB5F 9F5B FB9B AA97 8C99 03C8 A49B 521B D5D3 SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg,

I think a network trace would tell us for use whether the server is responding or not. You can follow the instruction here to make one: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Bug_Reporting#cifs.ko -- Aurélien Aptel / SUSE Labs Samba Team GPG: 1839 CB5F 9F5B FB9B AA97 8C99 03C8 A49B 521B D5D3 SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah

> > When you provide an exact vers= then no auto-negotiation happens (unless > you pass "vers=3" which essentially means 3.x: use 3.0 or above). You > either get the connection or mount fails. None the less, you can dump > the current SMB ressources managed by the kernel by looking at > /proc/fs/cifs/DebugData if your kernel is recent enough it should show > the SMB

Forgot to reply to this Ralph Böhme <slow at samba.org> writes: > Hi Aurélien, > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 03:19:59PM +0200, Aurélien Aptel via samba wrote: >> At this point I think it should work, but I get: >> >> $ smbclient //foo.com/share -k > > I guess you need to specify the FQDN of the host, not the domain. Yes that was it, thanks! But both the

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 12:09:52PM +0200, Aurélien Aptel via samba wrote: > Dan Janowski via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: > > > [ Unknown signature status ] > > Does os x (10.13) support negotiation of unix extensions/CIFS? > > > > When hard links didn’t work I dug in and while I found info on CAP_UNIX, and added ‘unix extensions = yes’ globally,

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, Rowland Penny wrote: >> I have a samba file server that I created about 20 years ago and in >> the time I have done the little updates needed to new server (when I >> move to a new server I copy config and adapt if needed). >> It only do public file sharing. >> >> Some weeks ago a client stopped to connect to the share. >> Only this

Does os x (10.13) support negotiation of unix extensions/CIFS? When hard links didn’t work I dug in and while I found info on CAP_UNIX, and added ‘unix extensions = yes’ globally, the Negotiation makes no mentions: Negotiate Protocol Request (0x00) Capabilities: 0x00000077, DFS, LEASING, LARGE MTU, PERSISTENT HANDLES, DIRECTORY LEASING, ENCRYPTION Negotiate Protocol Response (0x00)