On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 07:36:25AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > It is the wrong place to do it. If some data should only be accessible
> > by root then it should live in secrets.tdb otherwise it should go
> > somewhere else.
>
> I know. This is just experimental code playing with the thoug
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 09:42:02AM -0500, Gerald Carter wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > * The other alternative is to move the (not too big) groupdb API
> > entirely to the passdb backend. This would make it possible to get
> > LDAP replication for group mappi
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 08:41:15AM +1000, Tim Potter wrote:
> The smbcacls program was written before anyone understood access masks
> and generic mappings properly. The individual bitmasks are defined in
> WINNT.H if you have Visual C++. They are all the constants starting
> with FILE_.
Now t
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 11:31:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Unfortunately escaping didn't work either - so you're probably right
> > assuming that names are not supported.
> > Do you know where I get the hex code for the NT-ACLs ?
>
> I don't know of anywhere to find these other than in
Not tried but the problem is easy to find and we encountered it in our
auth code.
It seem that w2k has some sort of very dumb option active by default
that drops connection if it finds more than one from the same ip under
some cicumstances (mostly when auth is not yet finished and a new
connection
Hi,
I used smbtorture's netbench runs against Samba on Linux and Mac OS X to
get a clue wich system performs better than the other. Now I've tried the
same against a Windows 2000 Server, but had no success.
What happens: w2k seems to have some optimizations regarding client
connections. If I rai
At 16:36 14.10.2002 -0400, Bradley W. Langhorst wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 16:29, Irving Carrion wrote:
> > Sorry, I found the file group_mapping.tdb.
> >
> > You were right Simply deleting the old
> > group_mapping.tdb file and restarting samba did the trick.
> >
> > Thank
On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 16:29, Irving Carrion wrote:
> Sorry, I found the file group_mapping.tdb.
>
> You were right Simply deleting the old
> group_mapping.tdb file and restarting samba did the trick.
>
> Thanks!
> IRV
wow - i never would have thought of a corrupt tdb...
w
Hi,
This is cool. Which Windows clients have you tested with?
As for the patch, it might be better if you coded this such that a
self-referral either pointed to itself, or to the proxied share. Having
something like 'msdfs proxy = server\share' in smb.conf, and sending that
whenever a self-refer
Sorry, I found the file group_mapping.tdb.
You were right Simply deleting the old
group_mapping.tdb file and restarting samba did the trick.
Thanks!
IRV
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Irving
Carrion
Sent: Monday,
I did a search for that file (group_mapping.tdb) and I don't see it.
Could this be the reason it doesn't work?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stefan
(metze) Metzmacher
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:04 PM
To: Irving Carrion; [EMAIL PRO
>NT group (SID) -> Unix group
>
>Domain Guests (S-1-5-21-2879687004-3117605197-2714178016-514) -> -1
>domainadmins (S-1-5-21-2879687004-3117605197-2714178016-3003) -> domainadmins
remove your group_mapping.tdb and make a new start
smbgroupedit -c "Domain Admins" -u domainadmins -td
metze
---
Hi Jelmer,
can you please apply this patch.
it remove the FLAG_SAM_* macros they are no longer defined in smb.h
so make bin/samtest failed :-(
I'm working on a patch for sam/ that do the same as my last patch to passdb/
metze
--
The following changes have already been applied to the Samba
HEAD and 2_2 branches (around the end of this past August). I
would like to request that they be applied to the 3_0 branch as
well.
The effect is to ifdef out all of the profile code if
WITH_PROFILE is false. We need this change becau
Gerald Carter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Green, Paul wrote:
>
> > Hmm. I'm using rsync not CVS...Looks like I am getting the
> > same version of Makefile.in using rsync that you see using
> > CVS (good), but where is the actual file when you extract it
> > from CVS? rsync
hi,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 09:15:41AM -0500, Gerald Carter wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Guenther Deschner wrote:
>
> > ops. patch is against 2_2 - cvs.
>
> Thanks. But please patch against HEAD. I'm not going to add any
> newfunctionality to SAMBA_2_2.
right. here is the diff (that need
Title: RE: Commit my stuff to 3.0?
I have been working on a clustered storage product that uses Samba as one of its interfaces. We dealt with some of the issues of ID mapping in a limited way.
The main concern we had was making sure all the nodes in the cluster would have the same SID->UID ma
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> * The other alternative is to move the (not too big) groupdb API
> entirely to the passdb backend. This would make it possible to get
> LDAP replication for group mapping quite easily. We could encapsulate
> LDAP (with connection caching...
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> The 'Samba Team' doesn't maintain smbfs, and without those changes a patch
> to smbmount doesn't make to much sense. That said, I don't mind applying
> them - but it's not been a priority.
I have a bunch of changes, mostly bugfixes, that I wanted
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Guenther Deschner wrote:
> ops. patch is against 2_2 - cvs.
Thanks. But please patch against HEAD. I'm not going to add any
newfunctionality to SAMBA_2_2.
cheers, jerry
-
Hewlett-Packard
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Green, Paul wrote:
> Hmm. I'm using rsync not CVS...Looks like I am getting the same version
> of Makefile.in using rsync that you see using CVS (good), but where is
> the actual file when you extract it from CVS? rsync puts the file into
> libsmb not into rpc_client.
Fixe
ops. patch is against 2_2 - cvs.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 03:36:04PM +0200, Guenther Deschner wrote:
> hello shirish,
>
> we made some more experiments with the dfs-code and now have a running
> solution for our smb-proxy, without breaking msdfs (well, i didn't had a
> look on the dfs_rpc-pipe fo
hello shirish,
we made some more experiments with the dfs-code and now have a running
solution for our smb-proxy, without breaking msdfs (well, i didn't had a
look on the dfs_rpc-pipe for now...)
you can now have a samba-share behave like an mdfs-symlink.
if you set a share to "msdfs proxy = yes
Tim Potter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 09:00:17PM -0400, Green, Paul wrote:
>
> > HEAD has cli_dfs.c in the directory source/rpc_client.
> > 2_2 and 3_0 have cli_dfs.c in the directory source/libsmb.
> >
> > These file locations match source/Makefile.in *except*
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Jeff Mandel wrote:
> Are your patches by special arrangement with Sun? I have a contract
> but see no available t-patches and no reference to one in the bug
> listing for 4700402. Where can I obtain this patch?
T-patches are "pre-release" patches; "T" is for "testing", I thi
Hi,
I wanted to confirm, that as far I don't have problems with oplocks for
samba 2.2.x.
I use samba from CVS September 9.
BTW, could someone explain what was the exact cause of this problem?
Regards,
Olaf Fraczyk
On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 11:54, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 10:09:36AM +0200, Jean Francois Micouleau wrote:
>
> > so I propose to map the users to the normal domain SID (S-1-5-21-x-y-z)
> > and create their accounts with the ACCOUNT_DISABLED flag.
>
> I hesitated to do that, b
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 10:09:36AM +0200, Jean Francois Micouleau wrote:
> so I propose to map the users to the normal domain SID (S-1-5-21-x-y-z)
> and create their accounts with the ACCOUNT_DISABLED flag.
I hesitated to do that, but I also like this idea. I already implemented it for
groups, s
Hi!
As usual, get them at:
http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~staburet/freshsamba
or
http://ranger.dnsalias.com/mandrake/samba
Get the SRPM at:
http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~staburet/SRPMS
Cheers,
Sly
--
Sylvestre Taburet - Project Manager - 1024D/030E1B7E
Mandrakesoft S.A. - 43, rue d'Abouk
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > My solution for this is mapping users not in the 'rich' pdb backend to
> > S-1-5-33-uid (no typo!). This is the newly created 'local unix
> > auth'. lookupsid should return 'not mapped', as NT4 would after that
> > look
On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 09:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Yes, we need a simple solution, but I'm not sure there is one...
>
> Seeing all these Problems I am now not sure if removing all the
> dependencies on algorithmic mapping is a good idea. I'm currently
> looking at the code from a different
32 matches
Mail list logo
