On Tue 2007-12-11 09:46, Marc Winiger wrote:
> we have problems to share non-ffs filesystems with samba. it makes no 
> difference if the share points to such a filesystem or the filesystem is 
> mounted as a subdirectory of the share.
>
> this happens on 4.2 and -current
>
> anybody can confirm? any ideas what the problem is?

I can confirm but I have no ideas:

Yesterday I updated from 4.1 to 4.2 and directly set my cvs to OPENBSD_4_2 and 
compiled and installed the kernel+objects:

# uname -a 
OpenBSD boromir.zuhause.lan 4.2 GENERIC#22 i386

# mount
/dev/wd0a on / type ffs (local)
/dev/wd0d on /home type ffs (local)
/dev/sd0i on /mnt/tmp/HD400LD_i type msdos (local, nodev, noexec, nosuid, 
read-only, uid=1000, gid=1000, direxec)
/dev/sd0j on /mnt/tmp/HD400LD_j type ext2fs (local, nodev, noexec, nosuid, 
read-only)

# pkg_info|egrep "samba|smb"                                                    
  
samba-3.0.25b       SMB and CIFS client and server for UNIX

$ smbclient //boromir/tmp-ro -N
Domain=[ZUHAUSE] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 3.0.25b]
Server not using user level security and no password supplied.
smb: \> dir
  .                                   D        0  Wed Mar  5 07:49:30 2008
  ..                                  D        0  Tue Aug 28 18:00:04 2007
  HD400LD_i                           D        0  Tue Jan  1 01:00:00 1980
  HD400LD_j                           D        0  Mon Dec 31 14:54:47 2007

                37551 blocks of size 524288. 29511 blocks available
smb: \> cd HD400LD_j
smb: \HD400LD_j\> dir
  .                                   D        0  Mon Dec 31 14:54:47 2007

                37551 blocks of size 524288. 29511 blocks available
smb: \HD400LD_j\> cd demo
smb: \HD400LD_j\demo> get foo.bar
getting file \HD400LD_j\demo\foo.bar of size 1241116 as foo.bar (3400,6 kb/s) 
(average 3400,6 kb/s)

If I check this from a console a directory listing is successful even not being
root respecting the file attributes.

During the upgrade I followed the steps in the FAQ to upgrade from 4.1 to 4.2
and have not done any further modification.

Just to straighten out: If I change to directories subjected to the main file
system the directory listing works fine. 

Repeating my previous speaker:
>anybody can confirm? any ideas what the problem is?


Regards
Holger

-- 
lortas at freenet dot de
561D 00FE 86AE 3971 A0F3  EDED D799 8303 89AD AD0D
E-Mail-Knigge: http://www.uni-koeln.de/rrzk/kompass/104/k10414.html

Reply via email to