[Samba] Synology shares not accessible...

[Ingo Asche]

Hi Rowland,

to be clear, I'm completely your opinion.

They had a running 4.15.9(-0619, their own build number), which was a 
Beta, and the released version (-0632) didn't worked. So for me it's 
obvious, too.

I can bring the released version to run with a library from their beta 
version: libidmap-samba4.so. The reason for this as they wrote:

"A key difference between SMB packets 0619 and 0632 is whether the ID 
map needs to verify the SID over the network before converting it to a 
UID/GID.Version 0619 retains the old Samba method of not doing network 
polling, but from version 0624 onwards network polling is done." 
(Translated from German)

Whatever they meant with "old Samba method"

> Patch what, with what ?
> Do they not specify or provide a patch ?
> The bug report you provided a link to is still ongoing, it doesn't 
> seem to have come to a conclusion.
They seem to believe the attachments in the bug report are patches which 
you can install.
> So, it is only the synology machines that have the problem, other 
> machines against your DC's do not have the problem. To me, that sounds 
> like the problem lies on the synology machines, or am I missing 
> something (which wouldn't be the first time).
I agree. I have three of them. The oldest one with Samba 4.4.18 makes no 
problems. Their interpretation of Samba 4.15.x makes the problem, except 
for the beta.
> Well, it sounds that way to me, but there in lies another possible 
> problem. If you do have to patch the synology machines, this will 
> entail patching and building synology's version of Samba, have they 
> supplied you with the source code ?
I wanted only to know based on the bug report, is it something, which 
has to fixed on the DCs or the device which has shows the mentioned bug.
> I personally wouldn't want to patch my DC's to get a synology product 
> to work correctly, if doing so could break the rest of my domain.
>
> I could be extremely wrong here, but it makes more sense to me, to fix 
> the 'broken' thing, rather than 'unbroken' things.
Again, agreed. I think, you're right here, too...
> I would go back to synology and get them to clarify just what they 
> would like you to do and how you should do it.
That I will, I just hoped for some knowledge that will strengthen my 
arguments.
>
> Rowland
As always, thanks for your answer...

-- 
Regards
Ingo
https://github.com/WAdama