Re: [Samba] %S Macro seems broken in default service
That's great info -- thanks. I will start following that bug report with great interest. I can see where the issue is and how this could be a serious problem. It will be good to see how it is fixed. One suggestion that I'll make both here and over there (I don't know if you have any pull on this), is that this "feature" is documented in the 4.0 man pages. In smb.conf(5) it says: "Also note that the apparent service name will be changed to equal that of the requested service, this is very useful as it allows you to use macros like %S to make a wildcard service." I'd like to see the feature available again (maybe with an understanding of risk that it can entail), but if not then that description should probably be struck from the documentation. Thanks for the spot-on tip of where the bug is and the issues surrounding it! -Ty! On 06/07/2013 04:02 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote: On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 14:37 -0600, Ty! Boyack wrote: Does anyone know if this is intentional, or a bug? I don't see any references to others having the problem, so I'm wondering if I've missed something in the transition to 4.0 that needs to be done. It's a bit of both. See https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8935 That is, it wasn't anticipated that folks would use %S in this way, and the change avoids clients being able to consume memory as we re-interpret the service for each incoming name. Andrew Bartlett -- -===- Ty Boyack NREL Senior IT Engineer ty.boy...@colostate.edu (970) 491-1186 -===- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
[Samba] %S Macro seems broken in default service
I am having trouble with the %S Macro being expanded to an unexpected value. We have a section of disk where each directory under that directory is to be it's own share. This looks like: /export/ /export/share1 /export/share2 . . /export/shareN Rather than listing each share uniquely in the smb.conf, we put this in the global section: default service = export along with all of our defaults and settings. Then we have the "export" service the "default service" refers to: [export] path = /export/%S writeable = yes browseable = no On previous samba versions (3.4.7 is one that I checked), it works fine. Now on 4.0.5 and 4.0.6 on Fedora 18, it no longer works. Before -- if a user asked for \\server\share1, %S would be set to "share1" and Samba would look for /export/share1. Now, it appears that %S contains "export" since the logs give errors that it cannot find the path /export/export. It's almost like the requested service is being changed to "export" (like you would want default service to do), but the name that the user supplied is also being overwritten, so that I can't see what share the user wanted. Does anyone know if this is intentional, or a bug? I don't see any references to others having the problem, so I'm wondering if I've missed something in the transition to 4.0 that needs to be done. Note that IF I list each share in the smb.conf file as [share1] path = /export/share1 writeable = yes browsable = no then everything works fine, so I think it's just the macro expansion that is giving me fits. Thanks for any help, -Ty -- -===- Ty Boyack NREL Senior IT Engineer ty.boy...@colostate.edu (970) 491-1186 -===- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] Is Samba useful in an all-Linux environment?
On 08/17/2009 04:25 PM, Henrik Dige Semark wrote: Steve Litt skrev: On Monday 17 August 2009 15:55:34 John Drescher wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote: Steve Litt kirjoitti: Hi all, This isn't meant to be a troll. It's a legitimate question asked because I haven't done much with Samba for 9 years. Is there anything Samba can contribute to an all-Linux environment with no Windows or Mac computers? Well, atleast it is more secure than nfsv3 ? That along with better performance and also better handling of disconnections are a couple of reasons to use samba/cifs over nfs3. How about performance and security of Samba vs. NFS4 on an all Linux network? Samba is definitely more secure then NFS but performance wise it is definitely my expiration that NFS is much fasten with small files, but about the same on big files. (I'm not trying to inflame on a thread that is not trying to troll, but...) I'd like to see some backing that Samba is more secure than NFS -- I don't think that it's black-and-white enough for a blanket statement of that sort. I will certainly grant that many common configurations of NFS have security issues, but with the ability to run NFS in kerberized modes I would think that it has a very similar security model to Samba+ADS. And more secure than Samba with other security models like user or share, I believe. I don't think there is a significant difference in the quality of software (both Samba and NFS are well written pieces of code), but configurations can vary greatly. Samba does provide some very useful functionality to an all Linux environment in that a user can take a stock linux box that knows nothing of your local network setups and connect to a Samba share. It requires very little training since users already are aware of this from the Windows world. If ease of support of unsecured clients is a primary concern, Samba would be a good choice. If you have full control over the clients, NFS can work without any user intervention. This has it's own support benefit, but you need to ensure that client security is taken care of as well. Samba allows an extra layer of configuration via smb.conf that can help with sharing and access controls, but it can also add a layer of confusion if used improperly. Also, you have to enable special Samba extensions to get full support for things that come native to NFS -- full permission support, symbolic links, hard links, special devices/fifos. If your applications need these things, then you are likely better off using NFS. (And as noted by the earlier posters -- if you use NFS, you'll find better utility from NFSv4 than NFSv3). There are certainly trade offs, but yes, I can see a reason to implement samba in an all Linux environment if it is the right choice for your user base/application needs. -Ty! -- -===- Ty! Boyack NREL Unix Network Manager t...@nrel.colostate.edu (970) 491-1186 -===- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
