date:20160706

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

2016-07-06 Thread Christof Schmitt

The first patch is at least in Samba 4.2 and newer. The patch to the 
vfs_gpfs module is only in Samba 4.3 and newer. So any of these should fix 
your problem:

 - Add the vfs_gpfs patch to the source code of Samba 4.2.9 and recompile 
the code.
 - Upgrade to Sernet Samba 4.3.x or newer
 - Change the Samba services to the ones provided through CES

Regards,

Christof Schmitt || IBM || Spectrum Scale Development || Tucson, AZ
christof.schm...@us.ibm.com  ||  +1-520-799-2469(T/L: 321-2469)



From:   "Sobey, Richard A" 
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Date:   07/06/2016 07:54 AM
Subject:Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
Sent by:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org



Cheers Christof. We're using Sernet Samba [4.2.9] so limited by what they 
release. How can I identify which version of Samba is a) affect by the the 
first link and b) which version has got the patch incorporated?

I'm not a developer as you can guess :)

-Original Message-
From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org [
mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Christof 
Schmitt
Sent: 06 July 2016 15:46
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

The message in the trace confirms that this is triggered by: 
https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=acbb4ddb6876c15543c5370e6d27faacebc8a231


I suspect that the Samba version used misses the patch 
https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=fdbca5e13a0375d7f18639679a627e67c3df647a


The CES build of Samba shippied in Spectrum Scale includes the mentioned 
patch, and that should avoid the problem seen. Would it be possible to 
build Samba again with the mentioned patch to test whether that fixes the 
issue seen here?

Regards,

Christof Schmitt || IBM || Spectrum Scale Development || Tucson, AZ
christof.schm...@us.ibm.com  ||  +1-520-799-2469(T/L: 321-2469)



From:   "Sobey, Richard A" 
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Date:   07/06/2016 05:23 AM
Subject:Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
Sent by:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org



Thanks Daniel – sorry to be dense, but does this indicate working as 
intended, or a bug? I assume the former. So, the question still remains 
how has this suddenly broken, when:
 
[root@server ict]# mmgetacl -k nfs4 .snapshots/
.snapshots/: Operation not permitted
 
…appears to be the correct output and is consistent with someone else’s 
GPFS cluster where it is working.
 
Cheers
 
Richard
 
From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org [ 
mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Daniel 
Kidger
Sent: 06 July 2016 12:51
To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Cc: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
 
Looking at recent patches to SAMBA I see from December 2015:
https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/patches/security/samba-4.1.21-security-2015-12-16.patch

,
(link found at  https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11658 which 
includes the comment: 
Failing that, smbd_check_access_rights should check Unix perms at that 
point.
)
 
diff --git a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
index fca05cf..07e2f8a 100644
--- a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
+++ b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
  */
 
 #include "includes.h"
+#include "smbd/smbd.h"
 #include "system/filesys.h"
 #include "include/ntioctl.h"
 #include 
@@ -1138,6 +1139,42 @@ static char *have_snapdir(struct vfs_handle_struct 
*handle,
 return NULL;
 }
 
+static bool check_access_snapdir(struct vfs_handle_struct *handle,
+const char *path)
+{
+struct smb_filename smb_fname;
+int ret;
+NTSTATUS status;
+
+ZERO_STRUCT(smb_fname);
+smb_fname.base_name = talloc_asprintf(talloc_tos(),
+"%s",
+path);
+if (smb_fname.base_name == NULL) {
+return false;
+}
+
+ret = SMB_VFS_NEXT_STAT(handle, _fname);
+if (ret != 0 || !S_ISDIR(smb_fname.st.st_ex_mode)) {
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return false;
+}
+
+status = smbd_check_access_rights(handle->conn,
+_fname,
+false,
+SEC_DIR_LIST);
+if (!NT_STATUS_IS_OK(status)) {
+DEBUG(0,("user does not have list permission "
+"on snapdir %s\n",
+smb_fname.base_name));
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return false;
+}
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return true;
+}
+
 
Daniel

 

 
 
Dr Daniel Kidger
IBM Technical Sales Specialist
Software Defined Solution Sales

+44-07818 522 266
daniel.kid...@uk.ibm.com
 
 

 
 
 
-

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

2016-07-06 Thread Sobey, Richard A

By the way, we are planning to go to CES / 4.2.x in a matter of weeks, but 
understanding this problem was quite important for me. Perhaps knowing now that 
the fix is probably to install a different version of Samba, we’ll probably 
leave it alone.

Thank you everyone for your help,

Richard

From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org 
[mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Sobey, Richard A
Sent: 06 July 2016 16:23
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

I’m afraid it’s not a typo ☺

[root@server gpfs]# rpm -qa | grep sernet
sernet-samba-ctdb-tests-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-common-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-winbind-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-ad-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-libs-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-libsmbclient-devel-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-libsmbclient0-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-ctdb-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-libwbclient-devel-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-client-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-debuginfo-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64

From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org 
[mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Buterbaugh, 
Kevin L
Sent: 06 July 2016 16:21
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Hi Richard,

Is that a typo in the version?  We’re also using Sernet Samba but we’ve got 
4.3.9…

Kevin

On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Sobey, Richard A 
> wrote:

Cheers Christof. We're using Sernet Samba [4.2.9] so limited by what they 
release. How can I identify which version of Samba is a) affect by the the 
first link and b) which version has got the patch incorporated?

I'm not a developer as you can guess :)

-Original Message-
From: 
gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org
 [mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Christof Schmitt
Sent: 06 July 2016 15:46
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

The message in the trace confirms that this is triggered by:
https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=acbb4ddb6876c15543c5370e6d27faacebc8a231

I suspect that the Samba version used misses the patch 
https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=fdbca5e13a0375d7f18639679a627e67c3df647a

The CES build of Samba shippied in Spectrum Scale includes the mentioned patch, 
and that should avoid the problem seen. Would it be possible to build Samba 
again with the mentioned patch to test whether that fixes the issue seen here?

Regards,

Christof Schmitt || IBM || Spectrum Scale Development || Tucson, AZ
christof.schm...@us.ibm.com  ||  
+1-520-799-2469(T/L: 321-2469)

From:   "Sobey, Richard A" 
>
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
>
Date:   07/06/2016 05:23 AM
Subject:Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
Sent by:
gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org

Thanks Daniel – sorry to be dense, but does this indicate working as intended, 
or a bug? I assume the former. So, the question still remains how has this 
suddenly broken, when:

[root@server ict]# mmgetacl -k nfs4 .snapshots/
.snapshots/: Operation not permitted

…appears to be the correct output and is consistent with someone else’s GPFS 
cluster where it is working.

Cheers

Richard

From: 
gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org
 [ mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kidger
Sent: 06 July 2016 12:51
To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Cc: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Looking at recent patches to SAMBA I see from December 2015:
https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/patches/security/samba-4.1.21-security-2015-12-16.patch
,
(link found at  https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11658 which includes 
the comment:
Failing that, smbd_check_access_rights should check Unix perms at that point.
)

diff --git a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
index fca05cf..07e2f8a 100644
--- a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
+++ b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
 */

#include "includes.h"
+#include "smbd/smbd.h"
#include "system/filesys.h"
#include "include/ntioctl.h"
#include 
@@ -1138,6 +1139,42 @@ static char

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

2016-07-06 Thread Sobey, Richard A

I’m afraid it’s not a typo ☺

[root@server gpfs]# rpm -qa | grep sernet
sernet-samba-ctdb-tests-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-common-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-winbind-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-ad-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-libs-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-libsmbclient-devel-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-libsmbclient0-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-ctdb-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-libwbclient-devel-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-client-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64
sernet-samba-debuginfo-4.2.9-19.el6.x86_64

From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org 
[mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Buterbaugh, 
Kevin L
Sent: 06 July 2016 16:21
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Hi Richard,

Is that a typo in the version?  We’re also using Sernet Samba but we’ve got 
4.3.9…

Kevin

On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Sobey, Richard A 
> wrote:

Cheers Christof. We're using Sernet Samba [4.2.9] so limited by what they 
release. How can I identify which version of Samba is a) affect by the the 
first link and b) which version has got the patch incorporated?

I'm not a developer as you can guess :)

-Original Message-
From: 
gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org
 [mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Christof Schmitt
Sent: 06 July 2016 15:46
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

The message in the trace confirms that this is triggered by:
https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=acbb4ddb6876c15543c5370e6d27faacebc8a231

I suspect that the Samba version used misses the patch 
https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=fdbca5e13a0375d7f18639679a627e67c3df647a

The CES build of Samba shippied in Spectrum Scale includes the mentioned patch, 
and that should avoid the problem seen. Would it be possible to build Samba 
again with the mentioned patch to test whether that fixes the issue seen here?

Regards,

Christof Schmitt || IBM || Spectrum Scale Development || Tucson, AZ
christof.schm...@us.ibm.com  ||  
+1-520-799-2469(T/L: 321-2469)



From:   "Sobey, Richard A" 
>
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
>
Date:   07/06/2016 05:23 AM
Subject:Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
Sent by:
gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org



Thanks Daniel – sorry to be dense, but does this indicate working as intended, 
or a bug? I assume the former. So, the question still remains how has this 
suddenly broken, when:

[root@server ict]# mmgetacl -k nfs4 .snapshots/
.snapshots/: Operation not permitted

…appears to be the correct output and is consistent with someone else’s GPFS 
cluster where it is working.

Cheers

Richard

From: 
gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org
 [ mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kidger
Sent: 06 July 2016 12:51
To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Cc: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Looking at recent patches to SAMBA I see from December 2015:
https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/patches/security/samba-4.1.21-security-2015-12-16.patch
,
(link found at  https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11658 which includes 
the comment:
Failing that, smbd_check_access_rights should check Unix perms at that point.
)

diff --git a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
index fca05cf..07e2f8a 100644
--- a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
+++ b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
 */

#include "includes.h"
+#include "smbd/smbd.h"
#include "system/filesys.h"
#include "include/ntioctl.h"
#include 
@@ -1138,6 +1139,42 @@ static char *have_snapdir(struct vfs_handle_struct 
*handle,
return NULL;
}

+static bool check_access_snapdir(struct vfs_handle_struct *handle,
+const char *path)
+{
+struct smb_filename smb_fname;
+int ret;
+NTSTATUS status;
+
+ZERO_STRUCT(smb_fname);
+smb_fname.base_name = talloc_asprintf(talloc_tos(),
+"%s",
+path);
+if (smb_fname.base_name == NULL) {
+return false;
+}
+
+ret = SMB_VFS_NEXT_STAT(handle, _fname);
+if (ret != 0 || !S_ISDIR(smb_fname.st.st_ex_mode)) {
+

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

2016-07-06 Thread Buterbaugh, Kevin L

Hi Richard,

Is that a typo in the version?  We’re also using Sernet Samba but we’ve got 
4.3.9…

Kevin

On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Sobey, Richard A 
> wrote:

Cheers Christof. We're using Sernet Samba [4.2.9] so limited by what they 
release. How can I identify which version of Samba is a) affect by the the 
first link and b) which version has got the patch incorporated?

I'm not a developer as you can guess :)

-Original Message-
From: 
gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org
 [mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Christof Schmitt
Sent: 06 July 2016 15:46
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
>
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

The message in the trace confirms that this is triggered by:
https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=acbb4ddb6876c15543c5370e6d27faacebc8a231

I suspect that the Samba version used misses the patch 
https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=fdbca5e13a0375d7f18639679a627e67c3df647a

The CES build of Samba shippied in Spectrum Scale includes the mentioned patch, 
and that should avoid the problem seen. Would it be possible to build Samba 
again with the mentioned patch to test whether that fixes the issue seen here?

Regards,

Christof Schmitt || IBM || Spectrum Scale Development || Tucson, AZ
christof.schm...@us.ibm.com  ||  +1-520-799-2469(T/L: 321-2469)



From:   "Sobey, Richard A" 
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Date:   07/06/2016 05:23 AM
Subject:Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
Sent by:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org



Thanks Daniel – sorry to be dense, but does this indicate working as intended, 
or a bug? I assume the former. So, the question still remains how has this 
suddenly broken, when:

[root@server ict]# mmgetacl -k nfs4 .snapshots/
.snapshots/: Operation not permitted

…appears to be the correct output and is consistent with someone else’s GPFS 
cluster where it is working.

Cheers

Richard

From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org [ 
mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kidger
Sent: 06 July 2016 12:51
To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Cc: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Looking at recent patches to SAMBA I see from December 2015:
https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/patches/security/samba-4.1.21-security-2015-12-16.patch
,
(link found at  https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11658 which includes 
the comment:
Failing that, smbd_check_access_rights should check Unix perms at that point.
)

diff --git a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
index fca05cf..07e2f8a 100644
--- a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
+++ b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
 */

#include "includes.h"
+#include "smbd/smbd.h"
#include "system/filesys.h"
#include "include/ntioctl.h"
#include 
@@ -1138,6 +1139,42 @@ static char *have_snapdir(struct vfs_handle_struct 
*handle,
return NULL;
}

+static bool check_access_snapdir(struct vfs_handle_struct *handle,
+const char *path)
+{
+struct smb_filename smb_fname;
+int ret;
+NTSTATUS status;
+
+ZERO_STRUCT(smb_fname);
+smb_fname.base_name = talloc_asprintf(talloc_tos(),
+"%s",
+path);
+if (smb_fname.base_name == NULL) {
+return false;
+}
+
+ret = SMB_VFS_NEXT_STAT(handle, _fname);
+if (ret != 0 || !S_ISDIR(smb_fname.st.st_ex_mode)) {
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return false;
+}
+
+status = smbd_check_access_rights(handle->conn,
+_fname,
+false,
+SEC_DIR_LIST);
+if (!NT_STATUS_IS_OK(status)) {
+DEBUG(0,("user does not have list permission "
+"on snapdir %s\n",
+smb_fname.base_name));
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return false;
+}
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return true;
+}
+

Daniel





Dr Daniel Kidger
IBM Technical Sales Specialist
Software Defined Solution Sales

+44-07818 522 266
daniel.kid...@uk.ibm.com






- Original message -
From: "Sobey, Richard A"  Sent by: 
gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Cc:
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2016 10:55 AM

Sure. It might be easier if I just post the entire smb.conf:

[global]
  netbios name = store
  workgroup = IC
  security = ads
  realm = IC.AC.UK
  kerberos method = secrets and keytab

  vfs objects = shadow_copy2 syncops

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

2016-07-06 Thread Sobey, Richard A

Cheers Christof. We're using Sernet Samba [4.2.9] so limited by what they 
release. How can I identify which version of Samba is a) affect by the the 
first link and b) which version has got the patch incorporated?

I'm not a developer as you can guess :)

-Original Message-
From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org 
[mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Christof Schmitt
Sent: 06 July 2016 15:46
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

The message in the trace confirms that this is triggered by: 
https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=acbb4ddb6876c15543c5370e6d27faacebc8a231

I suspect that the Samba version used misses the patch 
https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=fdbca5e13a0375d7f18639679a627e67c3df647a

The CES build of Samba shippied in Spectrum Scale includes the mentioned patch, 
and that should avoid the problem seen. Would it be possible to build Samba 
again with the mentioned patch to test whether that fixes the issue seen here?

Regards,

Christof Schmitt || IBM || Spectrum Scale Development || Tucson, AZ
christof.schm...@us.ibm.com  ||  +1-520-799-2469(T/L: 321-2469)



From:   "Sobey, Richard A" 
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Date:   07/06/2016 05:23 AM
Subject:Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
Sent by:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org



Thanks Daniel – sorry to be dense, but does this indicate working as intended, 
or a bug? I assume the former. So, the question still remains how has this 
suddenly broken, when:
 
[root@server ict]# mmgetacl -k nfs4 .snapshots/
.snapshots/: Operation not permitted
 
…appears to be the correct output and is consistent with someone else’s GPFS 
cluster where it is working.
 
Cheers
 
Richard
 
From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org [ 
mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kidger
Sent: 06 July 2016 12:51
To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Cc: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
 
Looking at recent patches to SAMBA I see from December 2015:
https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/patches/security/samba-4.1.21-security-2015-12-16.patch
,
(link found at  https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11658 which includes 
the comment: 
Failing that, smbd_check_access_rights should check Unix perms at that point.
)
 
diff --git a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
index fca05cf..07e2f8a 100644
--- a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
+++ b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
  */
 
 #include "includes.h"
+#include "smbd/smbd.h"
 #include "system/filesys.h"
 #include "include/ntioctl.h"
 #include 
@@ -1138,6 +1139,42 @@ static char *have_snapdir(struct vfs_handle_struct 
*handle,
 return NULL;
 }
 
+static bool check_access_snapdir(struct vfs_handle_struct *handle,
+const char *path)
+{
+struct smb_filename smb_fname;
+int ret;
+NTSTATUS status;
+
+ZERO_STRUCT(smb_fname);
+smb_fname.base_name = talloc_asprintf(talloc_tos(),
+"%s",
+path);
+if (smb_fname.base_name == NULL) {
+return false;
+}
+
+ret = SMB_VFS_NEXT_STAT(handle, _fname);
+if (ret != 0 || !S_ISDIR(smb_fname.st.st_ex_mode)) {
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return false;
+}
+
+status = smbd_check_access_rights(handle->conn,
+_fname,
+false,
+SEC_DIR_LIST);
+if (!NT_STATUS_IS_OK(status)) {
+DEBUG(0,("user does not have list permission "
+"on snapdir %s\n",
+smb_fname.base_name));
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return false;
+}
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return true;
+}
+
 
Daniel

 

 
 
Dr Daniel Kidger
IBM Technical Sales Specialist
Software Defined Solution Sales

+44-07818 522 266
daniel.kid...@uk.ibm.com
 
 

 
 
 
- Original message -
From: "Sobey, Richard A"  Sent by: 
gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Cc:
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2016 10:55 AM
 
Sure. It might be easier if I just post the entire smb.conf:
 
[global]
   netbios name = store
   workgroup = IC
   security = ads
   realm = IC.AC.UK
   kerberos method = secrets and keytab
 
   vfs objects = shadow_copy2 syncops gpfs fileid
   ea support = yes
   store dos attributes = yes
   map readonly = no
   map archive = no
   map system = no
   map hidden = no
   unix extensions = no
   allocation roundup size = 1048576
 
   disable netbios = yes
   smb ports = 445
#   server signing =

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

2016-07-06 Thread Christof Schmitt

The message in the trace confirms that this is triggered by: 
https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=acbb4ddb6876c15543c5370e6d27faacebc8a231

I suspect that the Samba version used misses the patch 
https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=fdbca5e13a0375d7f18639679a627e67c3df647a

The CES build of Samba shippied in Spectrum Scale includes the mentioned 
patch, and that should avoid the problem seen. Would it be possible to 
build Samba again with the mentioned patch to test whether that fixes the 
issue seen here?

Regards,

Christof Schmitt || IBM || Spectrum Scale Development || Tucson, AZ
christof.schm...@us.ibm.com  ||  +1-520-799-2469(T/L: 321-2469)



From:   "Sobey, Richard A" 
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Date:   07/06/2016 05:23 AM
Subject:Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
Sent by:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org



Thanks Daniel – sorry to be dense, but does this indicate working as 
intended, or a bug? I assume the former. So, the question still remains 
how has this suddenly broken, when:
 
[root@server ict]# mmgetacl -k nfs4 .snapshots/
.snapshots/: Operation not permitted
 
…appears to be the correct output and is consistent with someone else’s 
GPFS cluster where it is working.
 
Cheers
 
Richard
 
From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org [
mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Daniel 
Kidger
Sent: 06 July 2016 12:51
To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Cc: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
 
Looking at recent patches to SAMBA I see from December 2015:
https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/patches/security/samba-4.1.21-security-2015-12-16.patch
,
(link found at  https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11658 which 
includes the comment: 
Failing that, smbd_check_access_rights should check Unix perms at that 
point.
)
 
diff --git a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c 
b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
index fca05cf..07e2f8a 100644
--- a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
+++ b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
  */
 
 #include "includes.h"
+#include "smbd/smbd.h"
 #include "system/filesys.h"
 #include "include/ntioctl.h"
 #include 
@@ -1138,6 +1139,42 @@ static char *have_snapdir(struct vfs_handle_struct 
*handle,
 return NULL;
 }
 
+static bool check_access_snapdir(struct vfs_handle_struct *handle,
+const char *path)
+{
+struct smb_filename smb_fname;
+int ret;
+NTSTATUS status;
+
+ZERO_STRUCT(smb_fname);
+smb_fname.base_name = talloc_asprintf(talloc_tos(),
+"%s",
+path);
+if (smb_fname.base_name == NULL) {
+return false;
+}
+
+ret = SMB_VFS_NEXT_STAT(handle, _fname);
+if (ret != 0 || !S_ISDIR(smb_fname.st.st_ex_mode)) {
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return false;
+}
+
+status = smbd_check_access_rights(handle->conn,
+_fname,
+false,
+SEC_DIR_LIST);
+if (!NT_STATUS_IS_OK(status)) {
+DEBUG(0,("user does not have list permission "
+"on snapdir %s\n",
+smb_fname.base_name));
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return false;
+}
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return true;
+}
+
 
Daniel

 

 
 
Dr Daniel Kidger
IBM Technical Sales Specialist
Software Defined Solution Sales

+44-07818 522 266 
daniel.kid...@uk.ibm.com
 
 

 
 
 
- Original message -
From: "Sobey, Richard A" 
Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
Cc:
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2016 10:55 AM
 
Sure. It might be easier if I just post the entire smb.conf:
 
[global]
   netbios name = store
   workgroup = IC
   security = ads
   realm = IC.AC.UK
   kerberos method = secrets and keytab
 
   vfs objects = shadow_copy2 syncops gpfs fileid
   ea support = yes
   store dos attributes = yes
   map readonly = no
   map archive = no
   map system = no
   map hidden = no
   unix extensions = no
   allocation roundup size = 1048576
 
   disable netbios = yes
   smb ports = 445
#   server signing = mandatory
 
   template shell = /bin/bash
   interfaces = bond2 lo bond0
   allow trusted domains = no
 
   printing = bsd
   printcap name = /dev/null
   load printers = no
   disable spoolss = yes
 
   idmap config IC : default = yes
   idmap config IC : cache time = 180
   idmap config IC : backend = ad
   idmap config IC : schema_mode = rfc2307
   idmap config IC : range = 500 - 200
   idmap config * : range = 300 - 350
   idmap config * : backend = tdb2
   winbind refresh tickets = yes
   winbind nss info = rfc2307
   winbind use default domain =

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

2016-07-06 Thread Sobey, Richard A

Thanks Daniel – sorry to be dense, but does this indicate working as intended, 
or a bug? I assume the former. So, the question still remains how has this 
suddenly broken, when:

[root@server ict]# mmgetacl -k nfs4 .snapshots/
.snapshots/: Operation not permitted

…appears to be the correct output and is consistent with someone else’s GPFS 
cluster where it is working.

Cheers

Richard

From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org 
[mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kidger
Sent: 06 July 2016 12:51
To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Cc: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Looking at recent patches to SAMBA I see from December 2015:
https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/patches/security/samba-4.1.21-security-2015-12-16.patch,
(link found at  https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11658 which includes 
the comment:

Failing that, smbd_check_access_rights should check Unix perms at that point.

)

diff --git a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c 
b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
index fca05cf..07e2f8a 100644
--- a/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
+++ b/source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
  */

 #include "includes.h"
+#include "smbd/smbd.h"
 #include "system/filesys.h"
 #include "include/ntioctl.h"
 #include 
@@ -1138,6 +1139,42 @@ static char *have_snapdir(struct vfs_handle_struct 
*handle,
 return NULL;
 }

+static bool check_access_snapdir(struct vfs_handle_struct *handle,
+const char *path)
+{
+struct smb_filename smb_fname;
+int ret;
+NTSTATUS status;
+
+ZERO_STRUCT(smb_fname);
+smb_fname.base_name = talloc_asprintf(talloc_tos(),
+"%s",
+path);
+if (smb_fname.base_name == NULL) {
+return false;
+}
+
+ret = SMB_VFS_NEXT_STAT(handle, _fname);
+if (ret != 0 || !S_ISDIR(smb_fname.st.st_ex_mode)) {
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return false;
+}
+
+status = smbd_check_access_rights(handle->conn,
+_fname,
+false,
+SEC_DIR_LIST);
+if (!NT_STATUS_IS_OK(status)) {
+DEBUG(0,("user does not have list permission "
+"on snapdir %s\n",
+smb_fname.base_name));
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return false;
+}
+TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname.base_name);
+return true;
+}
+

Daniel






Dr Daniel Kidger
IBM Technical Sales Specialist
Software Defined Solution Sales

+44-07818 522 266
daniel.kid...@uk.ibm.com







- Original message -
From: "Sobey, Richard A" >
Sent by: 
gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org
To: gpfsug main discussion list 
>
Cc:
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions
Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2016 10:55 AM


Sure. It might be easier if I just post the entire smb.conf:



[global]

   netbios name = store

   workgroup = IC

   security = ads

   realm = IC.AC.UK

   kerberos method = secrets and keytab



   vfs objects = shadow_copy2 syncops gpfs fileid

   ea support = yes

   store dos attributes = yes

   map readonly = no

   map archive = no

   map system = no

   map hidden = no

   unix extensions = no

   allocation roundup size = 1048576



   disable netbios = yes

   smb ports = 445

#   server signing = mandatory



   template shell = /bin/bash

   interfaces = bond2 lo bond0

   allow trusted domains = no



   printing = bsd

   printcap name = /dev/null

   load printers = no

   disable spoolss = yes



   idmap config IC : default = yes

   idmap config IC : cache time = 180

   idmap config IC : backend = ad

   idmap config IC : schema_mode = rfc2307

   idmap config IC : range = 500 - 200

   idmap config * : range = 300 - 350

   idmap config * : backend = tdb2

   winbind refresh tickets = yes

   winbind nss info = rfc2307

   winbind use default domain = true

   winbind offline logon = true

   winbind separator = /

   winbind enum users = true

   winbind enum groups = true

   winbind nested groups = yes

   winbind expand groups = 2



   winbind max clients = 1



   clustering = yes

   ctdbd socket = /tmp/ctdb.socket

   gpfs:sharemodes = yes

   gpfs:winattr = yes

   gpfs:leases = yes

   gpfs:dfreequota = yes

#  nfs4:mode = special

#   nfs4:chown = no

   nfs4:chown = yes

   nfs4:mode = simple



nfs4:acedup = merge

   fileid:algorithm = fsname

   force unknown acl user = yes



   shadow:snapdir = .snapshots

   shadow:fixinodes = yes

   shadow:snapdirseverywhere = yes

   shadow:sort = desc



   syncops:onclose = no

   syncops:onmeta = no

   kernel oplocks = yes

   level2 oplocks = yes

   oplocks = yes

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

2016-07-06 Thread Sobey, Richard A

Sure. It might be easier if I just post the entire smb.conf:

[global]
   netbios name = store
   workgroup = IC
   security = ads
   realm = IC.AC.UK
   kerberos method = secrets and keytab

   vfs objects = shadow_copy2 syncops gpfs fileid
   ea support = yes
   store dos attributes = yes
   map readonly = no
   map archive = no
   map system = no
   map hidden = no
   unix extensions = no
   allocation roundup size = 1048576

   disable netbios = yes
   smb ports = 445
#   server signing = mandatory

   template shell = /bin/bash
   interfaces = bond2 lo bond0
   allow trusted domains = no

   printing = bsd
   printcap name = /dev/null
   load printers = no
   disable spoolss = yes

   idmap config IC : default = yes
   idmap config IC : cache time = 180
   idmap config IC : backend = ad
   idmap config IC : schema_mode = rfc2307
   idmap config IC : range = 500 - 200
   idmap config * : range = 300 - 350
   idmap config * : backend = tdb2
   winbind refresh tickets = yes
   winbind nss info = rfc2307
   winbind use default domain = true
   winbind offline logon = true
   winbind separator = /
   winbind enum users = true
   winbind enum groups = true
   winbind nested groups = yes
   winbind expand groups = 2

   winbind max clients = 1

   clustering = yes
   ctdbd socket = /tmp/ctdb.socket
   gpfs:sharemodes = yes
   gpfs:winattr = yes
   gpfs:leases = yes
   gpfs:dfreequota = yes
#  nfs4:mode = special
#   nfs4:chown = no
   nfs4:chown = yes
   nfs4:mode = simple

nfs4:acedup = merge
   fileid:algorithm = fsname
   force unknown acl user = yes

   shadow:snapdir = .snapshots
   shadow:fixinodes = yes
   shadow:snapdirseverywhere = yes
   shadow:sort = desc

   syncops:onclose = no
   syncops:onmeta = no
   kernel oplocks = yes
   level2 oplocks = yes
   oplocks = yes
   notify:inotify = no
   wide links = no
   async smb echo handler = yes
   smbd:backgroundqueue = False
   use sendfile = no
   dmapi support = yes

   aio write size = 1
   aio read size = 1

   enable core files = no

#debug logging
   log level = 2
   log file = /var/log/samba.%m
   max log size = 1024
   debug timestamp = yes

[IC]
   comment = Unified Group Space Area
   path = /gpfs/prd/groupspace/ic
   public = no
   read only = no
   valid users = "@domain users"

From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org 
[mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Barry Evans
Sent: 06 July 2016 10:47
To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org
Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions


Can you cut/paste your full VFS options for gpfs and shadow copy from smb.conf?

On 06/07/2016 10:37, Sobey, Richard A wrote:
Quick followup on this. Doing some more samba debugging (i.e. increasing log 
levels!) and come up with the following:


[2016/07/06 10:07:35.602080,  3] ../source3/smbd/vfs.c:1322(check_reduced_name)

  check_reduced_name: admin/ict/serviceoperations/slough_project/Slough_Layout 
reduced to 
/gpfs/prd/groupspace/ic/admin/ict/serviceoperations/slough_project/Slough_Layout

[2016/07/06 10:07:35.611881,  3] ../source3/smbd/dosmode.c:196(unix_mode)

  unix_mode(admin/ict/serviceoperations/slough_project/Slough_Layout) returning 
0644

[2016/07/06 10:07:35.613374,  0] 
../source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c:1211(check_access_snapdir)

  user does not have list permission on snapdir 
/gpfs/prd/groupspace/ic/admin/ict/.snapshots

[2016/07/06 10:07:35.613416,  0] 
../source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c:1380(shadow_copy2_get_shadow_copy_data)

  access denied on listing snapdir /gpfs/prd/groupspace/ic/admin/ict/.snapshots

[2016/07/06 10:07:35.613434,  0] 
../source3/modules/vfs_default.c:1145(vfswrap_fsctl)

  FSCTL_GET_SHADOW_COPY_DATA: connectpath /gpfs/prd/groupspace/ic, failed - 
NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED.

[2016/07/06 10:07:47.648557,  3] ../source3/smbd/service.c:1138(close_cnum)

  155.198.55.14 (ipv4:155.198.55.14:51298) closed connection to service IPC$

Any takers? I cannot run mmgetacl on the .snapshots folder at all, as root. A 
snapshot I just created to make sure I had full control on the folder: (39367 
is me, I didn't run this command on a CTDB node so the UID mapping isn't 
working).

[root@icgpfs01 .snapshots]# mmgetacl -k nfs4 @GMT-2016.07.06-08.00.06
#NFSv4 ACL
#owner:root
#group:root
group:74036:r-x-:allow:FileInherit:DirInherit:Inherited
(X)READ/LIST (-)WRITE/CREATE (-)MKDIR (X)SYNCHRONIZE (X)READ_ACL  (X)READ_ATTR  
(X)READ_NAMED
(-)DELETE(-)DELETE_CHILD (-)CHOWN (X)EXEC/SEARCH (-)WRITE_ACL (-)WRITE_ATTR 
(-)WRITE_NAMED

user:39367:rwxc:allow:FileInherit:DirInherit:Inherited
(X)READ/LIST (X)WRITE/CREATE (X)MKDIR (X)SYNCHRONIZE (X)READ_ACL  (X)READ_ATTR  
(X)READ_NAMED
(X)DELETE(X)DELETE_CHILD (X)CHOWN (X)EXEC/SEARCH (X)WRITE_ACL (X)WRITE_ATTR 
(X)WRITE_NAMED

From: 
gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org
 [mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] On Behalf Of Sobey, Richard A
Sent: 20 June 2016

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

2016-07-06 Thread Barry Evans

Can you cut/paste your full VFS options for gpfs and shadow copy from 
smb.conf?



On 06/07/2016 10:37, Sobey, Richard A wrote:


Quick followup on this. Doing some more samba debugging (i.e. 
increasing log levels!) and come up with the following:


[2016/07/06 10:07:35.602080,  3] 
../source3/smbd/vfs.c:1322(check_reduced_name)


  check_reduced_name: 
admin/ict/serviceoperations/slough_project/Slough_Layout reduced to 
/gpfs/prd/groupspace/ic/admin/ict/serviceoperations/slough_project/Slough_Layout


[2016/07/06 10:07:35.611881,  3] ../source3/smbd/dosmode.c:196(unix_mode)

unix_mode(admin/ict/serviceoperations/slough_project/Slough_Layout) 
returning 0644


[2016/07/06 10:07:35.613374,  0] 
../source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c:1211(check_access_snapdir)


*  user does not have list permission on snapdir 
/gpfs/prd/groupspace/ic/admin/ict/.snapshots*


[2016/07/06 10:07:35.613416,  0] 
../source3/modules/vfs_shadow_copy2.c:1380(shadow_copy2_get_shadow_copy_data)


  access denied on listing snapdir 
/gpfs/prd/groupspace/ic/admin/ict/.snapshots


[2016/07/06 10:07:35.613434,  0] 
../source3/modules/vfs_default.c:1145(vfswrap_fsctl)


  FSCTL_GET_SHADOW_COPY_DATA: connectpath /gpfs/prd/groupspace/ic, 
failed - NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED.


[2016/07/06 10:07:47.648557,  3] 
../source3/smbd/service.c:1138(close_cnum)


  155.198.55.14 (ipv4:155.198.55.14:51298) closed connection to 
service IPC$


Any takers? I cannot run mmgetacl on the .snapshots folder at all, as 
root. A snapshot I just created to make sure I had full control on the 
folder: (39367 is me, I didn’t run this command on a CTDB node so the 
UID mapping isn’t working).


[root@icgpfs01 .snapshots]# mmgetacl -k nfs4 @GMT-2016.07.06-08.00.06

#NFSv4 ACL

#owner:root

#group:root

group:74036:r-x-:allow:FileInherit:DirInherit:Inherited

(X)READ/LIST (-)WRITE/CREATE (-)MKDIR (X)SYNCHRONIZE (X)READ_ACL 
(X)READ_ATTR  (X)READ_NAMED


(-)DELETE (-)DELETE_CHILD (-)CHOWN (X)EXEC/SEARCH (-)WRITE_ACL 
(-)WRITE_ATTR (-)WRITE_NAMED


user:39367:rwxc:allow:FileInherit:DirInherit:Inherited

(X)READ/LIST (X)WRITE/CREATE (X)MKDIR (X)SYNCHRONIZE (X)READ_ACL 
(X)READ_ATTR  (X)READ_NAMED


(X)DELETE (X)DELETE_CHILD (X)CHOWN (X)EXEC/SEARCH (X)WRITE_ACL 
(X)WRITE_ATTR (X)WRITE_NAMED


*From:*gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org 
[mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] *On Behalf Of 
*Sobey, Richard A

*Sent:* 20 June 2016 16:03
*To:* gpfsug main discussion list 
*Subject:* Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Thanks Kevin. We are upgrading to GPFS 4.2 and CES in a few weeks but 
our customers have come to like previous versions and indeed it is 
sort of a selling point for us.


Samba is the only thing we’ve changed recently after the badlock 
debacle so I’m tempted to blame that, but who knows.


If (when) I find out I’ll let everyone know.

Richard

*From:*gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org 
[mailto:gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org] *On Behalf Of 
*Buterbaugh, Kevin L

*Sent:* 20 June 2016 15:56
*To:* gpfsug main discussion list 
*Subject:* Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Hi Richard,

I can’t answer your question but I can tell you that we have 
experienced either the exact same thing you are or something very 
similar.  It occurred for us after upgrading from GPFS 3.5 to 4.1.0.8 
and it persists even after upgraded to GPFS 4.2.0.3 and the very 
latest sernet-samba.


And to be clear, when we upgraded from GPFS 3.5 to 4.1 we did *not* 
upgrade SAMBA versions at that time.  Therefore, I believe that 
something changed in GPFS.  That doesn’t mean it’s GPFS’ fault, of 
course.  SAMBA may have been relying on a 
bugundocumented feature in GPFS that IBM fixed 
for all I know, and I’m obviously speculating here.


The problem we see is that the .snapshots directory in each folder can 
be cd’d to but is empty.  The snapshots are all there, however, if you:


 cd //.snapshots/taken>/rest/of/path/to/folder/in/question


This obviously prevents users from being able to do their own recovery 
of files unless you do something like what you describe, which we are 
unwilling to do for security reasons.  We have a ticket open with DDN…


Kevin

On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:45 AM, Sobey, Richard A
> wrote:

Hi all

Can someone clarify if the ability for Windows to view snapshots
as Previous Versions is exposed by SAMBA or GPFS? Basically, if
suddenly my users cannot restore files from snapshots over a CIFS
share, where should I be looking?

I don’t know when this problem occurred, but within the last few
weeks certainly our users with full control over their data now
see no previous versions available, but if we export their fileset
and set “force user = root” all the snapshots are available.

I think the answer is SAMBA, right? We’re

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Snapshots / Windows previous versions

9 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information