similar to: 4.20: case (in)sensitive is broken

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "4.20: case (in)sensitive is broken"

2024 Jun 07
1
4.20: case (in)sensitive is broken
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
2024 Jun 07
1
4.20: case (in)sensitive is broken
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
2024 Jun 11
1
4.20: case (in)sensitive is broken
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?
2024 Jun 07
1
DC upgraded to 4.20.1 - issues
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
2024 Jun 07
1
missing msdfs referrals from samba directory listing: wrong order in smbd_dirptr_get_entry()?
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
2024 Jun 07
2
missing msdfs referrals from samba directory listing: wrong order in smbd_dirptr_get_entry()?
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
2024 Jun 07
1
smbstatus: who opened the file?
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
2024 Jun 07
1
missing msdfs referrals from samba directory listing: wrong order in smbd_dirptr_get_entry()?
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
2024 Jun 07
1
missing msdfs referrals from samba directory listing: wrong order in smbd_dirptr_get_entry()?
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
2024 Jun 10
0
mjt debian/ubuntu samba builds update
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
2024 Jun 20
3
leaving a domain?
Hi! I joined a newly installed samba (4.20.1) server to a domain, - just testing things. Now I want to remove this test server from a domain, but I can't: root at svdcm2:/# samba-tool domain leave -U tls\\mjt-adm WARNING: Using passwords on command line is insecure. Installing the setproctitle python module will hide these from shortly after program start. Password for [TLS\mjt-adm]:
2024 Jun 06
1
missing msdfs referrals from samba directory listing: wrong order in smbd_dirptr_get_entry()?
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 =>
2024 Jun 20
2
leaving a domain?
20.06.2024 15:03, Michael Tokarev via samba ?????: > Hi! > > I joined a newly installed samba (4.20.1) server to a domain, - just testing > things.? Now I want to remove this test server from a domain, but I can't: > > > root at svdcm2:/# samba-tool domain leave -U tls\\mjt-adm > WARNING: Using passwords on command line is insecure. Installing the setproctitle python
2024 Jul 05
1
samba-ad-dc from debian backports fails to start with /usr/sbin/samba missing
[Not including ellerhold.de address since the MXes in question does not accept connections form my part of the world] 05.07.2024 09:58, Matthias K?hne | Ellerhold Aktiengesellschaft via samba wrote: > Hello mjt, > > I can only speak for myself: > > For bigger upgrades (e. g. samba 4.19 -> 4.20) Im manually updating a > few servers and check if everything works. > >
2024 May 31
1
maximum samba AD functional level?
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,
2024 Jun 20
1
leaving a domain?
20.06.2024 15:16, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:07:11 +0300 > Michael Tokarev via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> 20.06.2024 15:03, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> Still, it'd be nice if samba-tool domain leave displayed some more >> appropriate error message, and no insecure-password-on-command-line >> warning
2024 Jun 20
1
leaving a domain?
20.06.2024 17:01, Ralph Boehme wrote: > On 6/20/24 2:03 PM, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> How to remove this machine from a domain? > net ads leave ... Yeah, I tried that one right after `samba-tool domain leave` - it complains there's no way to leave a domain if joined as a DC. I *guess* this is the error `samba-tool domain leave` faces too, just without proper error
2024 Jul 08
1
samba-ad-dc from debian backports fails to start with /usr/sbin/samba missing
07.07.2024 16:05, Sonic via samba wrote: > On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 3:55?AM Michael Tokarev via samba > <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > ... >> Please don't suppress *NEWS* entries. > ... > > As someone that was bitten by this change I have to admit I've never > seen these NEWS entries, or never realized I had. My Debian servers > are cli only (no X or
2024 Jul 08
2
samba-ad-dc from debian backports fails to start with /usr/sbin/samba missing
08.07.2024 17:18, Sonic wrote: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 6:46?AM Michael Tokarev <mjt at tls.msk.ru> wrote: > ... >> I think the main ingredient here is to have apt-listchanges package >> installed (which, while part of standard install, is optional). > ... > > I've always installed using the netinstall.iso which does not install > that package. Will add it
2024 Jul 30
1
4.21-rc: new symbols form appeared
I'm trying to build 4.21-rc packages for debian, and noticed that a new form of version info symbol appeared (only tried tdb for now). In addition to usual TDB.1.4.11 at TDB.1_4.11 symbol, it now also adds TDB_1_4_11 at TDB_1_4_11 (with dots replaced with underscores), but for single version only. It doesn't look right :) Thanks, /mjt -- GPG Key transition (from rsa2048 to