Re: [Samba] ou=computers ???
See at #987 bug. There is a workarround : The work arround is to configure nssldap user suffix to a suffix containing both users and machines entries in its scope (but it's not very usefull...). Ex : you have people in ou=users,dc=toto,dc=com and machines in ou=computers,dc=toto,dc=com And the user suffix in nssldap configuration set up to : dc=toto,dc=com With that, you can have in your smb.conf : ldap user suffix = ou=Users ldap machine suffix = ou=Computers Yohann F. users and machines entries in its scope (but it's not very usefull...). Le mar 11/05/2004 à 22:10, Ross Becker a écrit : > This is a known problem. The developers have only commented that you > > should use the same container for machines as for people in samba 3.0.x > thus far. I have filed this as bug #1292, but thus far there has been no > official word on a fix. > > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1292 > > Cheers > Ross Becker > Francesco Defilippo wrote: > > > Hi everybody, > > > > why in the new 3.0.3/4 when a new windows machine join on domain > > samba search (in ldap backend) on ou=Users and not in ou=computers? > > > > > > my smb.conf: > > > >ldap passwd sync = Yes > >ldap admin dn = "cn=ldap manager,dc=intra,dc=local" > >ldap suffix = dc=intra,dc=local > >ldap group suffix = ou=Groups > >ldap user suffix = ou=Users > >ldap machine suffix = ou=Computers > >ldap idmap suffix = ou=Users > > > > > > > > > > > >SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497 > > -- Yohann F. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Memory leak in Samba with APW printing configuration ?
Le jeu 29/04/2004 Ã 06:38, Gerald (Jerry) Carter a Ãcrit : > I don't see any memory leaks using valgrind 2.1.1 on > 3.0.3rc1. Can you provide more information? ps output, > /proc//status, etc > > And do you mean the printer properties dialog or are you > really using the APW icon ? > In fact, after lots of tests. It's Xerox drivers (Docu Color 3535 with fiery modules) which causes problems. When I can have the printer properties dialog, each time I clic on a button of the printer properties dialog, the smbd process takes more and more memory and the interface (the printer properties dialog) is very slow. But now, I can't have the dialog box, it hangs and the smbd process growthes. I have to kill samba, my explorer and to do a rpcclient to do a setdriver to change the driver, if not, each time I want to open the printer properties dialog of that printer, it hangs until the "out of memory" of the server... To solve the problem I've change the driver. There are 4 kinds of drivers for Xerox 3535 printers, the simpliest is the best and works. But I lost some features. -- Yohann F. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Memory leak in Samba with APW printing configuration ?
Hi, On Samba 3.0.2a on debian stable with a 2.6.5 kernel, each time I use APW to configure my printers, smbd takes more and more memory and the kernel does an Out of Memory (I have 512 Mo RAM). It's Xerox printers. Is the problem known (and corrected in 3.0.3rc1) or is it new ? Thanks for the answer. Cordialy, -- Yohann F. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] RPC: Problem Deleting LDAP-Entries in pdb_ldap.c
Arg : here is the patch (for Samba 3.0.2):
--8<-
--- a/smbldap.c Thu Feb 19 15:52:00 2004
+++ b/smbldap.c Thu Feb 19 15:52:13 2004
@@ -970,22 +970,166 @@
int rc = LDAP_SERVER_DOWN;
int attempts = 0;
char *utf8_dn;
+ /* Yohann */
+ BOOLdo_rename = False;
+ BOOLnaming_deleted = False;
+ BOOLnaming_more_value = False;
+ int i,j,k,new_rdn_len,new_dn_len;
+ char *rdn_attribut;
+ char **rdn;
+ char *new_rdn;
+ char *new_dn;
+ char *utf8_new_rdn;
+ char *utf8_new_dn;
+ char *new_rdn_value;
+ char *rdn_value;
+
+ rdn = ldap_explode_dn(dn,0);
+ rdn_attribut = strdup(strtok(rdn[0],"="));
+ rdn_value = strdup(strtok(NULL,","));
+ DEBUG(5,("smbldap_modify: dn => [%s]\n", dn ));
+
+for (i = 0; attrs[i] != NULL; i++) {
+ if ( ( attrs[i]->mod_op == LDAP_MOD_DELETE )
+ && strequal(attrs[i]->mod_type,rdn_attribut) ) {
+ for (j=0;attrs[i]->mod_values[j] != NULL; j++) {
+ if (strequal(attrs[i]->mod_values[j],rdn_value)) {
+ SAFE_FREE(attrs[i]->mod_values[j]);
+
attrs[i]->mod_values[j]=attrs[i]->mod_values[j+1];
+ for (k=j+1;attrs[i]->mod_values[k] != NULL;
k++)
+
attrs[i]->mod_values[k]=attrs[i]->mod_values[k+1];
+ naming_deleted = True;
+ } else {
+ naming_more_value = True;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (!naming_more_value) {
+ SAFE_FREE(attrs[i]->mod_type);
+ for (j=0;attrs[i]->mod_values[j] != NULL; j++)
+ SAFE_FREE(attrs[i]->mod_values[j]);
+ SAFE_FREE(attrs[i]->mod_values);
+ SAFE_FREE(attrs[i]);
+ attrs[i]=attrs[i+1];
+ for (j=i+1; attrs[j] != NULL; j++) {
+ attrs[j]=attrs[j+1];
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ if ( ( attrs[i] != NULL )
+ && ( ( attrs[i]->mod_op == LDAP_MOD_ADD && naming_deleted ) ||
attrs[i]->mod_op == LDAP_MOD_REPLACE )
+ && ( attrs[i]->mod_values[0] != NULL)
+ && ( strequal(attrs[i]->mod_type,rdn_attribut) ) ) {
+ do_rename = True;
+ new_rdn_value = strdup(attrs[i]->mod_values[0]);
+ if (!new_rdn_value) {
+ SAFE_FREE(rdn_attribut);
+ return LDAP_NO_MEMORY;
+ }
+
+ new_rdn_len= strlen(rdn_attribut) + strlen(new_rdn_value) + 2;
+ new_rdn = malloc( new_rdn_len );
+ if (!new_rdn) {
+ SAFE_FREE(rdn_attribut);
+ SAFE_FREE(new_rdn_value);
+ return LDAP_NO_MEMORY;
+ }
+
+ new_rdn[0] = '\0';
+ safe_strcat( new_rdn, rdn_attribut, new_rdn_len);
+ safe_strcat( new_rdn, "=" , new_rdn_len);
+ safe_strcat( new_rdn, new_rdn_value, new_rdn_len);
+ if (push_utf8_allocate(&utf8_new_rdn, new_rdn) == (size_t)-1) {
+ SAFE_FREE(rdn_attribut);
+ SAFE_FREE(new_rdn_value);
+ SAFE_FREE(new_rdn);
+ return LDAP_NO_MEMORY;
+ }
+
+ new_dn_len=strlen(new_rdn);
+ for(j=1; rdn[j] != NULL; j++) {
+ new_dn_len += strlen(rdn[j]) + 1;
+ }
+ new_dn=malloc(new_dn_len + 1);
+ if (!new_dn) {
+ SAFE_FREE(rdn_attribut);
+ SAFE_FREE(new_rdn_value);
+ SAFE_FREE(new_rdn);
+ SAFE_FREE(utf8_new_rdn);
+ return LDAP_NO_MEMORY;
+ }
+ new_dn[0]='\0';
+ safe_strcat(new_dn,new_rdn,new_dn_len);
+ for(j=1; rdn[j] != NULL; j++) {
+
Re: [Samba] RPC: Problem Deleting LDAP-Entries in pdb_ldap.c
Hi, I've done a patch to solve the probleme of naming violation in pdb_ldap.c when deleting/changing naming attribut (uid in most cases). Here is it (in attachment). Cdt, -- Yohann F.-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] RPC: Problem Deleting LDAP-Entries in pdb_ldap.c
Hi, I've done a patch to solve the probleme of naming violation in pdb_ldap.c when deleting/changing naming attribut (uid in most cases). Here is it (in attachment). Cdt, -- Yohann F. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
