Page 1 of 1

samba-3.0.25b-1 woes

Posted: 2008/01/14 21:39:49
by davlal
Hi there,
Just wondering if anyone else has experienced problems with samba-3.0.25b-1.el4_6.4. After I upgraded to this version my servers (whether they're standalone PDCs or AD member servers) will only let users into their home directories. Other folders that have been shared are listed but permissions prevent anyone from entereing & navigating them. I had this problem a few years ago with SuSE Linux 8.2 and the solution that worked then was to go back to the previous version - I've now gone back to samba-client-3.0.10-1.4E.12.2 on CentOS and everything's working fine again.

If anyone's interested the system log for the AD member server was filling up with:
Jan 11 14:46:20 centos_server smbd[5066]: [2008/01/11 14:46:20, 0] auth/auth_util.c:create_builtin_administrators(792)
Jan 11 14:46:20 centos_server smbd[5066]: create_builtin_administrators: Failed to create Administrators
Jan 11 14:46:20 centos_server smbd[5066]: [2008/01/11 14:46:20, 0] auth/auth_util.c:create_builtin_users(758)
Jan 11 14:46:20 centos_server smbd[5066]: create_builtin_users: Failed to create Users

I also got some of these:
Jan 11 14:54:33 centos_server winbindd[3371]: [2008/01/11 14:54:33, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_data(564)
Jan 11 14:54:33 centos_server winbindd[3371]: write_data: write failure. Error = Connection reset by peer
Jan 11 14:54:33 centos_server winbindd[3371]: [2008/01/11 14:54:33, 0] libsmb/clientgen.c:write_socket(159)
Jan 11 14:54:33 centos_server winbindd[3371]: write_socket: Error writing 104 bytes to socket 18: ERRNO = Connection reset by peer
Jan 11 14:54:33 centos_server winbindd[3371]: [2008/01/11 14:54:33, 0] libsmb/clientgen.c:cli_send_smb(189)
Jan 11 14:54:33 centos_server winbindd[3371]: Error writing 104 bytes to client. -1 (Connection reset by peer)

The PDC server log filled up with te following:
Jan 13 04:04:15 PDC winbindd[3174]: [2008/01/13 04:04:15, 0] libsmb/clientgen.c:cli_receive_smb(112)
Jan 13 04:04:15 PDC winbindd[3174]: Receiving SMB: Server stopped responding

Presumably it's some failure to communicate...

If anyone could shed some light on this it would be most useful as I'm not keen on running the older version of samba
Thanks
Dave

Re: samba-3.0.25b-1 woes

Posted: 2008/01/16 19:06:33
by chubinator
I am having the exact same issue with a new CentOS 5.1 install.
Aside from:

[2008/01/16 14:04:46, 0] libsmb/clientgen.c:cli_receive_smb(112)
Receiving SMB: Server stopped responding

I do not see any other errors.

I'm configuring Samba as a PDC and using winbind.

Re: samba-3.0.25b-1 woes

Posted: 2008/01/16 19:44:43
by michaelnel
Isn't samba-3.0.25b-1.el4_6.4 for CentOS 4? Why are you trying to use it on CentOS 5?

Re: samba-3.0.25b-1 woes

Posted: 2008/01/16 20:14:00
by chubinator
Please reread the above posts--the original poster was using a version with CentOS 4, presumably because he is using CentOS 4.
I was just pointing out that I was having the same issue with CentOS 5.1.

It appears both use the same samba version, but with different packages of course. My yum reports:

Installed Packages
samba.i386 3.0.25b-1.el5_1.4 installed

Also, this might be a known issue with 3.0.25:

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4973

Re: samba-3.0.25b-1 woes

Posted: 2008/01/17 15:49:34
by chubinator
FYI: I grabbed the samba-3.0.23c RPMS from CentOS 5.0 and installed those (after uninstalling the old ones of course) and everything is working. So you should be OK up to 3.0.23c if you want to run a "newer" version.

Unfortunately there was a significant security fix in 3.0.25, so hopefully the wonderful developers at samba can find a fix soon. From the bug report, it appears the bug exists in 3.0.25 through 3.0.28 and on different distros and archs.

Thanks,
Mark

Re: samba-3.0.25b-1 woes

Posted: 2008/01/17 19:33:09
by michaelnel
[quote]
chubinator wrote:
Please reread the above posts--the original poster was using a version with CentOS 4, presumably because he is using CentOS 4.[/quote]

The OP didn't say what OS he was running, but since he posted about running a 4.x version in a 5.x area, I am questioning it.