Re: [Samba] Rewrite:List Servers not implemented.
In article aanlktikaqybrd_deqmffmthjvv_ohn_zbtf1gl883...@mail.gmail.com, hemant...@gmail.com wrote: Permissions are perfect. and the bind version is 9.3 #rpm -qa |grep bind bind-utils-9.3.3-7.el5 bind-chroot-9.3.3-7.el5 ^^^ kdebindings-3.5.4-1.fc6 bind-9.3.3-7.el5 ypbind-1.19-7.el5 bind-libs-9.3.3-7.el5 system-config-bind-4.0.3-2.el5 I suspect you are using bind in chroot-ed environment. (snipped) On 11/24/2010 07:09 AM, hemanth kumar wrote: Hi all, When I start the named after adding the line include /usr/local/samba/private/named.conf; to named.conf file,named fails to start with error the following msg. Starting named: Error in named configuration: /etc/named.conf:64: open: /usr/local/samba/private/named.conf: file not found [FAILED] but the file is very much present in that path. In chroot-ed environment, I suppose you put samba-related named.conf under chroot-ed top directory (ex. /var/named/chroot/usr/local/samba/private/named.conf)? Tomoki AONO (a...@cc.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp) -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: Next alpha of 3.0 planned for Friday
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is just a heads up for everyone. I'm planning the 3.0alpha23 release for this Friday. If you have code that needs to be merged of commited to the SAMBA_3_0 cvs tree, please get in checked in by 8am EST on Friday of the week. Would someone take a look at CIDR-like notation problem by Mr. Takeda (and following mail by me) ? If this is right, example config described in securing-samba.sgml will not work as expected. (http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/2003-March/042993.html) Tomoki AONO ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: bug in masked_match function
I found this suspisious case (and described shortly in
Samba-JP), so I'll explain more.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The masked_match function in lib/access.c is wrong.(CVS HEAD and 2_2)
This case matches if CIDR-like notation specified in hosts
allow/deny (ex. '10.0.0.0/23') only. This is not case if
specified with network/subnet mask. (ex. '10.0.0.0/255.255.254.0')
I cite more lines in lib/access.c:
33 if (strlen(slash + 1) 2) {
34 mask = interpret_addr(slash + 1);
35 } else {
36 mask = (uint32)((ALLONES atoi(slash + 1)) ^ ALLONES);
37 }
Example: hosts allow = 10.0.0.0/23
This produces following result. This isn't mask.
mask = 0111
In case '10.0.0.0/255.255.254.0', program execute line 34
and returns:
mask = 1110
I don't know why this change was made.
http://cvs.samba.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/samba/source/lib/access.c.diff?r1=1.19.4.12r2=1.19.4.13
I think reverting change in line 36 (reverse shift
direction) or replacing '^'(XOR) to ''(AND) would solve
this case. Am I right?
Patch (I prefer replacing '^' to '') follows:
Index: lib/access.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/samba/source/lib/access.c,v
retrieving revision 1.35
diff -u -u -w -r1.35 access.c
--- lib/access.c12 Nov 2002 23:15:49 - 1.35
+++ lib/access.c14 Mar 2003 10:43:09 -
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
if (strlen(slash + 1) 2) {
mask = interpret_addr(slash + 1);
} else {
- mask = (uint32)((ALLONES atoi(slash + 1)) ^ ALLONES);
+ mask = (uint32)((ALLONES atoi(slash + 1)) ALLONES);
}
if (net == INADDR_NONE || mask == INADDR_NONE) {
Tomoki AONO ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Trash can patch
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I found a trash can patch quite some time ago on the Internet and managed to get it to work with the latest Samba source. (snip) I figure the best way to get it working better is to let people know where they can get it if they want to try it. http://leederville.net/samba/ Probably this feature is merged as VFS module in examples/VFS/recycle/ (2.2.7a)? (source/modules/ in HEAD and recent 3.0-alpha) I'm not using it though Tomoki AONO ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
[Samba] Re: serious problem with W2K TS and 2.2.7 PDC
(samba-technical is developer-related, so I added Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RedHat 7.3 PDC server with samba 2.2.7 rpm rebuilt with max connections patch and ldapsam and a few other minor changes, openldap 2.0.23-4. Windows 2000 Terminal Server with SP3, with various pre SP4 updates too. Various Win2K Pro, Win95 OSR2 clients. Is it likely that the %U expansion fixes broke this - some assumption with one pid/connection == one user? Yes. Would docs/Registry/WindowsTerminalServer.reg (in source file. I don't know where it place in the package) solve your problem? Tomoki AONO ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: serious problem with W2K TS and 2.2.7 PDC
(samba-technical is developer-related, so I added Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RedHat 7.3 PDC server with samba 2.2.7 rpm rebuilt with max connections patch and ldapsam and a few other minor changes, openldap 2.0.23-4. Windows 2000 Terminal Server with SP3, with various pre SP4 updates too. Various Win2K Pro, Win95 OSR2 clients. Is it likely that the %U expansion fixes broke this - some assumption with one pid/connection == one user? Yes. Would docs/Registry/WindowsTerminalServer.reg (in source file. I don't know where it place in the package) solve your problem? Tomoki AONO ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
