Samba 2.2.2 PDC - Win98/Winme - Can't see more than 100 users when sharing (PR#21923)

[Pablo Pessagno]

Ok, thanks...
I don't know if this helps you, but we tried with NT 4 and the bug was not 
there...
We have several linux boxen here. I am not a C programmer, but I'll be 
glad if I can help you someway (network dumps, trying again with HEAD ...)

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:57:37 -0800, jra at samba.org (Jeremy Allison) wrote :

> On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 06:15:01AM -0800, pessagno at esempi.com.ar wrote:
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > 
> > ------=OMAIL_ATT_0.349429895243706
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > First, a big thank you from Argentina for all your work (Samba team + 
> > Samba Users).
> > We have a 600 pcs with Win98/Winme and a redhat 7.1 installation with 
> > samba 2.2.2 release. 
> > The problem, as was reported many times on the lists, is that when a 
users 
> > wants to share a local folder, he can't see more than the first 100 
users 
> > in the lists. The smbpasswd file is ok, we even move some users to the 
> > firsts places so they can be seen. 
> > We have tried last friday with latest cvs, both head and samba2_2_2 
> > branches, with no luck. It amazed us since it was suposed to be 
working in 
> >  the head branch.d
> > I attach the log from a machine, running stock 2.2.2. Hope this 
helps...
> > We know that it would be better to use Win2k in the workstations, but 
we 
> > are working for the local government...
> 
> I've reproduced and taken a look at this one. It's not so easy to
> fix. It's actually a difference in the way Samba returns a large
> DCE/RPC datastream to Win9x clients. They expect things a "certain"
> way (as can be seen by looking at how W2K responds to them) and
> if it isn't returned that way they stop requesting more users.
> 
> It's a bug in the Win9x client code I think, but one that Win2k
> works around on the server side. I'll try and examine the server
> code in Samba to see how easy it is to do the same fix...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  Jeremy.
> 
> 
>