similar to: Only root can use net command, because of permissions of secrets.tdb

I have a question about setting up a samba BDC (with a samba PDC). I am running Samba as the PDC on a small network. Other Unix boxes on the network are running with: security = DOMAIN encrypt passwords = Yes update encrypted = Yes password server = 192.168.1.5 So they make use of the PDC for smbmount and smbsh applications. The W2K box also uses Samba at the PDC. I want to set up a Redhat

I used setenforce 0, and I was extremely surprised to see a burst of selinux denials appear in the journal. So I corrected the problem with: setsebool -P use_samba_home_dirs 1 And updating some policies. Thanks very much! I have never before dealt with selinux denials that don't appear in the journal until "enforcing" is changed to "permissive". Is this a samba

I cannot access home samba share from windows. Windows client displays a permission denied error. The problem is not Linux permissions for the user directory, permission is still denied when permissions are to 777. I don't think the problem is selinux, because no denials appear in any logs. I don't think it's an extended attributes issue from xfs, because I don't see any attributes

We have samba 4.8 and 4.9 servers that are Active Directory members. Windows and other samba clients can access the shares, and for years, iOS devices worked fine with Samba 4. But a few months ago, Apple IOS 10 and 11 devices started failing to authenticate. The problem is common to several iOS apps, FileBrowser, SMBManager, and some others all fail. The App vendors are stonewalling us, and

I am trying to integrate a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 server into our Windows 2003 domain. I was able to successfully join it to our domain, but the WBINFO commands keep failing when I start SMB and WINBIND. I looked at the log files and found this interesting entry in the /var/log/samba/winbindd.log file: [2006/11/29 21:49:11, 1] nsswitch/winbindd.c:main(864) winbindd version 3.0.10-1.4E.9

Hi ! il want tow have one ldap backend and tow instance domain in the same server. tow question : 1 - when i start the first instance domain1 i get a SID witch is put to secrets.tbd file. but when i start the second one it detect the SID in secrets file and so don't create an other. how can i differenttiate the secrets.tbd file for each instance refered to a different smb.conf

Hi list, I have a strange permission problem with secrets.tdb on an nfs mounted filesystem. A strace of smbd shows the following lines: ######################################################################## open("/etc/samba/private/secrets.tdb", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_LARGEFILE, 0600) = 4 fcntl64(4, F_SETLKW64, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=1}, 0xbffff010) = -1 EACCES

I'm not really clear on the actual benefits of the TBD file, and why Apple migrated to them in the first place. Shouldn't a dynamic library containing only the relevant parts (e.g. the dynamic symbol table) be roughly comparable in size? And, much simpler to support? I assume that's effectively what "Mach-O Dynamic Library Stubs" actually _were_, before the introduction of

> On Apr 9, 2018, at 3:23 PM, James Y Knight via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I'm not really clear on the actual benefits of the TBD file, and why Apple migrated to them in the first place. Shouldn't a dynamic library containing only the relevant parts (e.g. the dynamic symbol table) be roughly comparable in size? And, much simpler to support? I assume

Was there any progress in the upstreaming effort? I'd be interested in having lld be able to link against tbd files, and I think it'd be cool if libtool -static could write tbd files (similar to thin archives on linux) since that should make archiving much faster. Juergen, maybe uploading your initial patch to phabricator instead of attaching might get more traction? On Wed, Apr 25, 2018

Great to hear, thanks! On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:56 PM Jake Ehrlich <jakehehrlich at google.com> wrote: > A member of my team +Armando Montanez <amontanez at google.com> is going to > drop a proposal for the ELF part of this soon (like sometime next week) and > will be working on the implementation. I'll be one of the reviewers for > anything that comes out of that so

Benifits of TBD: 1) It's human readable and diffs on TBDs correspond to changes in the ABI. Diffs can be automatically added to review processes to ensure that changes to the ABI are reviewed. The TBDs also document your precise ABI. 2) The size is smaller which means they can be shipped in an SDK instead of binaries to reduce the size of an SDK 3) Stubs are producible from TBDs (or should be)

Seems like there are a few of us interested in this then. I new around here and don't really know how decisions are made, so what's next? Just open a diff with the entire library?? John On 04/10/2018 05:33 PM, Jake Ehrlich wrote: > Benifits of TBD: > 1) It's human readable and diffs on TBDs correspond to changes in the > ABI. Diffs can be automatically added to review

Hi Juergen, At a minimum I think adding the support to libobject, etc so the various llvm tools can read or even write files from/for OSX should be fairly non-controversial so how about go ahead and do that first (I'll happily review if you'd like) and then we can go from there to do anything else with TAPI and llvm? Sound good? -eric On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM Juergen Ributzka via

Hi @ll, Over the past years I have been looking into how to reduce the size of the SDK that ships with Xcode and how to improve build times for the overall OS inside Apple. The result is a tool called TAPI, which is used at Apple for all things related to text-based dynamic library files (.tbd). What are text-based dynamic library files? Text-based dynamic library files (TBDs) are a textual

Ideally Jurgen would cut up the code on github, put up an initial diff for a minimal viable tool, and then we would review it and then continue to copy code from the github repo into llvm and review it. I'm also willing to do that if Jurgen doesn't want to at this point though. I'd like the OK from Jurgen on that and I'd also like the OK from someone that the license stuff is all

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:11 PM, John Ericson via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Regardless of any of that, given that TBD files _are_ an integral part > of the apple platform, supporting them is certainly a necessity in order to > have a working apple linker. So, if making LLD work for Apple/MachO is the > justification for adding TBD support to LLVM, that

That sounds great to me, thanks Jake. I'm not Jurgen either, of course, but I'm happy to assist you if he is unavailable. I'm not also not qualified to audit the license, but do note Apple formally also released some code at https://opensource.apple.com/tarballs/tapi/. If there's anything else I can do to help, let me know. Cheers, John On 04/10/2018 06:13 PM, Jake Ehrlich

> Regardless of any of that, given that TBD files _are_ an integral part of the apple platform, supporting them is certainly a necessity in order to have a working apple linker. So, if making LLD work for Apple/MachO is the justification for adding TBD support to LLVM, that seems self-evidently a reasonable thing to do. On the other hand, it looks like the LLD mach-o code is unmaintained

Hi, I recently did a complete upgrade and reinstall of one of our Samba servers. No problem, I backed up all the data, the Samba configuration files, and the secrets.tdb. Just compiled 3.0.8 on the new server (which has the same hostname), copied the smb.conf to /usr/local/samba/lib and copied th secrets.tdb to /usr/local/samba/private. Started Samba, did 'net getlocalsid' and it