similar to: winbind: does it actually depend on nmbd? and network-online?

02.05.2024 19:43, Jeremy Allison via samba wrote: >>> Does winbind requires network to be online or just up? > > What's the difference between "online" and "up" ? "Online" has numerous meanings depending on the settings, but the basic idea is the same: when there's some connectivity present. I had a trap on my notebook due to this and due to

In the smbstatus output, "Locked files" section, there's a list of locked files (effectively opened files, since windows always locks a file which it opens) and corresponding pid of smbd process. How to map this information to user ID? Thanks, /mjt -- GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to rsa4096) since 2024-04-24. New key: rsa4096/61AD3D98ECDF2C8E 9D8B E14E 3F2A 9DD7 9199 28F1

Hi! I just uploaded binaries of samba versions 4.19.7-1 and 4.20.1-5 for ubuntu and debian to the usual location, http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/packages/samba/ . There are a few changes in there. First, I changed debian release suffix to be like: 4.20.1+dfsg-5~mjt-deb11 4.20.1+dfsg-5~mjt-ubt24 This should not change anything, just make it easier to track if neded, hopefully. And for 4.20

Hi! In the samba wiki there's this page: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Raising_the_Functional_Levels which basically says that the maximum supported functional level is 2008_R2, and that 2012 (and 2012_R2) are included but not supported. This page mentions maximum samba version 4.4 and has been modified in 2017 (besides some formatting changes). What's the current situation? Also,

06.06.2024 19:33, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > For quite some time I'm trying to find what's going on with MSDFS referrals. > Samba version is 4.19.6. .. > However, when opening the directory in question from client, this name is not > shown in the listing.? Samba skips this name from the listing when looping over > readdir entries: So, the same config just works in

07.06.2024 09:39, Stefan G. Weichinger via samba wrote: > I run 2 DCs at a site, Debian 12.5, so far samba-4.19.6 from backports. > > Today I upgraded one of them, this brought samba-4.20.1 > > Now on this one DC stuff like "wbinfo -g" fails: > > # wbinfo -g > could not obtain winbind interface details: WBC_ERR_WINBIND_NOT_AVAILABLE > could not obtain

Hi! This is a heads-up for now, more debugging to follow. I had to downgrade samba from 4.20.1 to 4.19.6 because 4.20 broke case insensitive file access entirely. Only exact case filename works, no matter which value is set in "case sensitive" parameter. In 4.19, things works again. /mjt -- GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to rsa4096) since 2024-04-24. New key:

07.06.2024 19:27, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 04:59:29PM +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> It boils down to having wide links = yes (and unix extensions = no). > > Wide links is problematic. I'd love to just remove it :-). I don't see anything problematic in wide links. I'd say it's samba who views it as problematic (just like in a

07.06.2024 10:13, Kees van Vloten via samba wrote: > There is a little difference with your config: I am not using symlinks in the filesystem but 'msdfs proxy' in smb.conf.? Not sure if that can be > related to your finding? msdfs proxy is not affected in this context. It is the access to msdfs-symlink *files* which broke. Thanks, /mjt -- GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to

10.06.2024 20:55, Jeremy Allison via samba wrote: > Here is the fix. Not sure if it breaks anything else (yet) :-). Wow. With the additional info from my previous email in mind, it looks like there's something else going on here. Namely, why the issue happens only if unix extensions is *excplicitly* turned off, while doesn't happen when it is turned off implicitly due to wide links?

07.06.2024 07:59, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 07.06.2024 07:54, Jeremy Allison wrote: >>> msdfs is broken in 4.19.? It worked fine in 4.18. > > This is not entirely true. Nope. Things are more interesting than that. I've a 4.19 installation where msdfs links works both in listing and when specified directly. There are 2 other installations of 4.19 where msdfs links

07.06.2024 07:54, Jeremy Allison wrote: >> msdfs is broken in 4.19.? It worked fine in 4.18. This is not entirely true. >> Is no one using msdfs?? I wonder why I was the first to discover this? > > There must not be a test for your specific use-case. > > MSDFS is tested in the autobuild test suite. Can > you articulate the problem well enough we can > build a

Hi! I'm trying to find where various components of samba belongs to and where they're used. There are quite a few files with unknown purpose. For example, a cpython library (python code which is to be linked to from a C program) libsamba-policy. On current debian it is like: usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsamba-policy.cpython-311-x86-64-linux-gnu.so.0.0.1

07.06.2024 20:52, Jeremy Allison wrote: > Fair enough. Can you post a minimal smb.conf and directory > setup that reproduces the problem and how to demo it with smbclient > command lines please ? I know I'm asking to be spoon-fed but my time for > Samba these days is quite limited and this would aid immensely > in creating a properly tested fix. You're not asking to be

Hi! For quite some time I'm trying to find what's going on with MSDFS referrals. Samba version is 4.19.6. We've global host msdfs = yes (the default anyway), and for a share in question, msdfs root = yes. testparam confirms the settings. There's a symlink created in the root dir of the share, which points to the same server but different path: dfstest =>

Hi! After providing samba builds for several debian and ubuntu releases for over 1.5 years, I see this service is quite popular still. However, I'd love to understand how useful it is still, and which releases should be provided in the future. For example, samba 4.16.x series is end-of-life, there has been no updates for it for quite some time and none planned, either. Yet people do have

25.05.2024 17:39, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: > ==================== > ? samba-common-bin - common binaries in /usr/bin: > ????? net > ????? testparm - it probably should come together with smb.conf but ok > ????? nmblookup - should it be part of smbclient? Probably irrelevant at this time. > ????? samba-tool - is about AD, I plan to move it to samba-ad-client pkg. >

Hi! I'm evaluating how various binaries and components are split into different binary packages in Debian. And am having issues classifying these. Initially there has been request to remove dependency on python3-samba package (this is AD-related stuff) from samba-the-file-server package, to be able to use it on smaller devices. And at the same time, there has been another request to move

On Thu, 2 May 2024 13:44:47 +0300 Michael Tokarev via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hi! > > In packaging/systemd/winbind.service, there's this ordering: > > After=network.target nmb.service > > Does winbind really need nmbd running? Well, no and yes ;-) No, if you are running Samba as an AD Unix domain member without SMBv1 (in which case, you do not

With the new signature file I was able to verify, but there was still a bad signature: "gpg: key 0x0FC3042E345AD05D: 1 bad signature" which I highlighted below. Didn't seem to be a problem, but thought I'd point it out. I'd be glad to do additional tests if you'd like. $ gpg --list-keys /home/wink/.gnupg/pubring.kbx ----------------------------- pub