Group db et al

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl at
Tue Dec 22 15:25:25 GMT 1998


thanks for your input.  is win95, not that i like win95, sending LANMAN
versions of these functions or is it sending dce/rpc calls?

On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Michael Stockman wrote:

> Hello,
> I've been digging a little in why usrmgr (for W95) refuses to show a list of users and groups any more (samba PDC, head branch). The symptome seems to be that send_trans_reply (in smbd/ipc.c) finds that maxdataret is smaller than the length of rdata, which causes it to set NT_STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION on the reply which usrmgr very much dislikes.
> The relation to user lists is that this occurs in the reply to SAMR_QUERY_DISPINFO which usrmgr does when trying to get a user list (if you have too many users in your smbpasswd file). Fixing this will however not make usrmgr run (unless something else gets fixed too) as usrmgr reports NT error 0xefef0000 (with fewer users, I don't know what this is). In this case there is not error reported in the samba logs (could be a malformed packet by samba?).
> A similar thing happens in reply_enum_dom_groups (something like that). It appears that all groups in /etc/groups are added to the list (mapping to domain groups is carried out). Is this meant to be? I thought that only groups explicitly mapped to domain groups should have been added(?) as is the case with domain users. All these groups (21 on my system) causes the send_trans_reply to fail as above (no, I haven't tried to remove groups from /etc/groups and see what happens).
> Best regards
>   Michael Stockman
>   pgmtekn-micke at

<a href="mailto:lkcl at" > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton  </a>
<a href=""> Samba and Network Development </a>
<a href=""       > Samba and Network Consultancy </a>

More information about the samba-ntdom mailing list