When sending a HUP signal isn't enough?
Tim Prouty
tim.prouty at isilon.com
Tue May 1 17:30:42 GMT 2007
Hi,
On certain smb.conf parameter changes, sending a HUP to samba is
unsafe. For example, if smbd is running with "security = user", and
a windows client sends a negotiate protocol request, smbd will reply
indicating that it is able to handle the security mode: USER. The
windows client will then send a Session Setup AndX Request that has a
word count of 12, which indicates that this sesssetup should be
handled by the special case sesssetup_spnego code. There is a race
that can happen between sending the negprot reply and receiving the
sesssetup request. If during this period of time smb.conf is changed
to "security = share", and smbd is sent a HUP signal, smbd will panic
due to this check in register_vuid():
/* Paranoia check. */
if(lp_security() == SEC_SHARE) {
smb_panic("Tried to register uid in security=share\n");
}
Also, when joining a new domain and changing the realm in smb.conf,
winbindd does not appear to correctly pick up the changes with a HUP
signal. Ideally, sending a HUP signal would always be sufficient,
but as a workaround, we send a TERM signal when changing the security
mode or realm.
Does anyone know of any other smb.conf parameters that a HUP signal
won't safely pick up the changes for?
Thanks!
-Tim
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list