Title: Message
I've noticed that if
user A has opened a filewith GENERIC_READ ,
SHARE_READ | SHARE_DELETE ,
FILE_FLAG_DELETE_ON_CLOSE
then user B cannot
open the file for reading. samba will return error code :
NT_STATUS_DELETE_PENDING, and it is mentioned in the code that
-
"this is
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 13:48, Nir Livni wrote:
if user B opens the file for read (and SHARE_READ | SHARE_DELETE) and
only then user A opens the file for DELETE_ON_CLOSE,
both open requests succeed.
1. Is this behaviour normal ?
Unfortunately there's no way to tell something is normal if
Samba does not allow user B to open the file for read after user A has
opened it for delete_on_close.
NT/2K server allows it.
My question is why samba allows user A to open delete_on_close after user B
opens for read,
And does not allow user B open for read after user A opens for
delete_on_close.
Title: Message
It
also seems that if user A opens a file,
and
after a while calls trans2setpathinfo or trans2setfileinfo and sets the
DELETE_ON_CLOSE flags,
then
when user B closes that file (user B did NOT open it to delete on close) the
file will be deleted.
-Original
cc: WorkShop Compilers 5.0 98/12/15 C 5.0 sparc-sun-solaris2.8
Compiling nsswitch/wbinfo.c
nsswitch/wbinfo.c, line 586: left operand must be modifiable lvalue: op =
cc: acomp failed for nsswitch/wbinfo.c
*** Error code 2
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `nsswitch/wbinfo.o'
Problem
If Samba is configured to try port 445 first, the 'smbclient -M' command
can't send messages to Win2K machines:
$ smbclient -M server -p 445
added interface ip=192.168.8.5 bcast=192.168.8.255 nmask=255.255.255.0
Got a positive name query response from 192.168.8.10 ( 192.168.8.10 )
I had the same problem with groups saying type = unknown. After that
command (smbgroupedit -c Domain Admins -t d) it seemed to have worked.
Many Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bradley W.
Langhorst
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003
Greetings ...
Been away a little so, please forgive me if this has been discussed
... I did search the archives and googled the net and this is what I
came up with ...
Standard Samba 2.2.7 does not rebind to do updates. This is a
problem when using LDAP and a replicated directory.
Hi, John!
Yep! It is! Using a Policy File! Create it using the MS Windows NT Group
Policy Editor. Put it (the NTConfig.POL) file in the root of your NETLOGON
share. It gets loaded by the client automatically at domain logon time.
Oh: PS: You need to create a policy editor template that
- Original Message -
From: C.Lee Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 7:21 PM
Subject: Samba 2.2.7a and LDAP Rebind for Slave enviroment ...
Standard Samba 2.2.7 does not rebind to do updates. This is a
problem when using LDAP and a
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 03:14:51PM +0200, Nir Livni wrote:
Samba does not allow user B to open the file for read after user A has
opened it for delete_on_close.
NT/2K server allows it.
My question is why samba allows user A to open delete_on_close after user B
opens for read,
And does not
Steve,
SMB messages sent via NBT or via naked TCP both have a four-byte header at
the top. Under NBT this is the NetBIOS Session Service header, and it
should have one byte of zero (indicating it's a Session Message) followed
by 7-bits of zero (an unused flags field) followed by 17-bits of
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:08:32AM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
So, smbclient should default to using port 139 for the NetServerEnum2
calls (-L option) unless -p is actually specified. Basically, the same
problem as -M.
Ok, that was the same conclusion I arrived at. I'll put
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Juergen Hasch wrote:
You are right, $(LDFLAGS) is missing for libsmbclient.
I think the correct patch would be to add the missing $(LDFLAGS) in
Makefile.in only where it is missing:
--
---
Steve,
That would be great. Please also look at the -L option too, as that
should default to 139 as well. (Sort of... it's not necessary for listing
shares.)
The -p option should override the defaults in any case, though. There are
folks who use port-redirection (for SSH links to the server,
Hi All
I currently have a samba PDC configure on a Solaris 8 server with an
smb.conf file as shown below.
I am currently replacing a NT PDC with this server. All works fine with
the Samba PDC except for validation of the
clearcase_albd user who is a member a clearcase group called VOBport.
The
The creat() system call results (for the Linux kernel) in calls to create
(via vfs_create) then later a call to open (via dentry_open) both of which
eventually end up (for the cifs vfs) doing a network open of the file from
the perspective of the CIFS protocol which degrades performance
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Steven French wrote:
The creat() system call results (for the Linux kernel) in calls to create
(via vfs_create) then later a call to open (via dentry_open) both of which
eventually end up (for the cifs vfs) doing a network open of the file from
the perspective of the CIFS
I've been tryin' to do this with Win2K.
Here are the results:
Scenario:
User A opens for delete on close, and then user B opens for read
Samba: User B fails
Win2K: User B successful
I used win2k clients that run
CreateFile(GENERIC_READ ,... , SHARE_READ | SHARE_DELETE ,...,
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:51:24AM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
That would be great. Please also look at the -L option too, as that
should default to 139 as well. (Sort of... it's not necessary for listing
shares.)
Ok. I'll add that to my queue behind getting libsmbclient to use the
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 10:14:10AM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Steven French wrote:
The creat() system call results (for the Linux kernel) in calls to create
(via vfs_create) then later a call to open (via dentry_open) both of which
eventually end up (for the cifs
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 10:14:10AM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
Isn't creat() a legacy call? I have never used it, and use open(...,
O_CREAT,...) instead.
Isn't this just a cost of using legacy calls? Why complicate things
overly
for a call that might not be used all that much?
As Jan
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Steven French wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 10:14:10AM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
Isn't creat() a legacy call? I have never used it, and use open(...,
O_CREAT,...) instead.
Isn't this just a cost of using legacy calls? Why complicate things
overly
for a call
There is a lookup intent patch from lustre group. It can be found
somewhere in the archives. Pushing that (or something along that lines)
to mainline and using that would be IMHO most beneficial
Better still would be to add a create-and-open VFS call and have namei
use it. This solves a
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Steven French wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 10:14:10AM -0800, Richard Sharpe wrote:
Isn't creat() a legacy call? I have never used it, and use open(...,
O_CREAT,...) instead.
Isn't this just a cost of using legacy calls? Why complicate things
overly
for a call
In my informal tests against XP the chaining of the SMB NTCreateX with
SMBClose is beneficial but probably would save less than 15%. The close
cost about 2 ms out of 14 ms total for the sequence of events that a either
the creat or open(O_CREAT) system calls cause but avoiding the second SMB
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 02:23:13PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:51:24AM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
That would be great. Please also look at the -L option too, as that
should default to 139 as well. (Sort of... it's not necessary for listing
shares.)
On Jan 06, 2003 11:42 -0800, Bryan Henderson wrote:
There is a lookup intent patch from lustre group. It can be found
somewhere in the archives. Pushing that (or something along that lines)
to mainline and using that would be IMHO most beneficial
Intent, as it's generally understood, is not
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:25:32AM -0600, Steven French wrote:
The creat() system call results (for the Linux kernel) in calls to create
(via vfs_create) then later a call to open (via dentry_open) both of which
eventually end up (for the cifs vfs) doing a network open of the file from
the
In our code, the lookup-with-intent actually performs both of the
operations
on the server,
What I don't get is why is the concept of intent even involved here? If
lookup-with-intent does the lookup and open (and, I guess, create where
appropriate), why don't you call it lookup-and-open and
On Jan 06, 2003 14:23 -0800, Bryan Henderson wrote:
In our code, the lookup-with-intent actually performs both of the
operations on the server,
What I don't get is why is the concept of intent even involved here? If
lookup-with-intent does the lookup and open (and, I guess, create where
Because the intent code is much more than just lookup-and-open.
It is also lookup-and-create, lookup-and-mkdir, lookup-and-unlink,
lookup-and-setattr, etc. I don't think we want separate VFS ops for
every possible VFS op.
That's really orthogonal to this discussion. If you want to conserve
32 matches
Mail list logo
