I've just attempted to apply (in dry-run mode) the supplied kernel patch but received a number of errors. Does anyone know if these are critical errors?
Thanks Here is the output: [ukfs02 linux-2.4]# patch -p1 --dry-run -i more_groups_simple.patch patching file arch/i386/kernel/init_task.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 11 with fuzz 2 (offset 1 line). patching file arch/s390/kernel/init_task.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 17 with fuzz 2 (offset 1 line). patching file include/asm-i386/param.h patching file include/asm-i386/processor.h Hunk #1 FAILED at 452. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/asm-i386/processor.h.rej patching file include/asm-s390/param.h Hunk #1 succeeded at 19 (offset 3 lines). patching file include/asm-s390/processor.h Hunk #1 FAILED at 144. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/asm-s390/processor.h.rej patching file include/linux/limits.h patching file include/linux/mm.h Hunk #1 FAILED at 454. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/mm.h.rej patching file include/linux/sched.h Hunk #1 succeeded at 520 (offset 146 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 546 (offset 76 lines). Hunk #3 FAILED at 587. Hunk #4 succeeded at 1143 (offset 196 lines). 1 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/linux/sched.h.rej patching file kernel/fork.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 580. Hunk #2 FAILED at 601. 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file kernel/fork.c.rej patching file kernel/sched.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 1314. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file kernel/sched.c.rej patching file mm/page_alloc.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 439. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file mm/page_alloc.c.rej > From: <Gibbs>, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:19:22 +0000 > To: "Kaplan, Marc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Samba] AD group membership limits? > > Marc, > > Thanks for the info (and sorry about my delay in posting back). > > I've just tested FC3 running the 2.6 kernel and it does resolve the issue. So > in an ideal world I'd prefer to wait for RHEL4 but because of required third > party drivers and apps that are required it looks like I'm going to have to > recompile with the patches. > > I've downloaded the patches from the paths you gave me but I'm not to sure how > to apply them as I've never had to do anything like this before. > > Have you (or anyone else out there) got any good pointers - specifically for > these patches. > > Thanks for your help. > > Simon > > >> From: "Kaplan, Marc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:24:28 -0800 >> To: "Gibbs, Simon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: [Samba] AD group membership limits? >> >> Simon, >> >> Yes, I have recompiled the kernel with support for a static NGROUPS with >> a patch from tridge and Rusty Russell. This does not seem to cause any >> problems at all on Samba servers, or with the Linux box in general and >> it does properly allow more supplementary groups. >> >> Here is what I used IIRC: >> http://ccache.samba.org/ftp/tridge/misc/more_groups_simple.patch >> http://ccache.samba.org/ftp/tridge/misc/maxgroups.patch >> >> Though I just checked on this, and maybe support for dynamic NGROUPS is >> now in the 2.6 kernel? See: >> http://www.linuxhq.com/kernel/changelog/v2.6/4/ >> >> -Marc >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:samba- >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibbs, >> Simon >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 2:58 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [Samba] AD group membership limits? >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm running Samba 3.0.11 on RedHat ES 3 kernel version >> 2.4.21-15.0.4.ELsmp >>> and have a quick question about AD group membership limits >>> >>> Am I right in assuming that Samba is limited by the group membership >>> parameters (ie NGROUP = 32) imposed by the Linux kernel? Is there any >>> workaround in Samba for this? >>> >>> At the moment if a user is a member of more then 32 domain groups they >>> cannot access any shares. If I remove some of the groups to below the >> 32 >>> group limit everything is fine. >>> >>> If there isn't a workaround in Samba has anyone reliably recompiled >> the >>> kernel and run Samba after changing the group parameters? >>> I guess this must be a fairly common problem in a lot of sites? >>> >>> Any help with this much appreciated. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ************************************************************************ >> ** >>> ****** >>> The information contained in this email message may be confidential. >> If >>> you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, >> disclosure >>> or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. Although >> this >>> message and any attachments are believed to be free of viruses, no >>> responsibility is accepted by T&F Informa for any loss or damage >> arising >>> in any way from receipt or use thereof. Messages to and from the >> company >>> are monitored for operational reasons and in accordance with lawful >>> business practices. >>> If you have received this message in error, please notify us by return >> and >>> delete the message and any attachments. Further enquiries/returns can >> be >>> sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the >>> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
