Releasing Samba 4.0 RC1?

[Stefan (metze) Metzmacher]

Am 12.08.2012 13:59, schrieb Andrew Bartlett:
> (TLDR: I want us to think about if we should release Samba 4.0 before or
> after SDC and the MS plugfest). 
> 
> 
> Over the past couple of months now, I have been releasing a Samba 4.0
> beta every two weeks, as we proceed on the path to a release candidate.
> Indeed, while I can't find the schedule right now, it called for the
> next release (Tuesday Aug 14) to be RC1!
> 
> Now that I have your attention, I'm not seriously suggesting pulling an
> RC next week, but I do want to discuss what we will do to get to making
> an RC of Samba 4.0, and how that might fit into other major development
> effort that is ongoing.
> 
> The background is that since Beta 2, s3fs has been the default and
> hasn't caused major issues.  This was consisdered the single biggest
> blocking issue.  That said, I am not totally happy with it, as the ACL
> handling needs work: we set ACLs during provision that are sent to the
> client, but not actually honoured by Samba.  I'm working to fix this. 
> 
> There is of course the series of bugs attached to
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8622 but sadly most of these
> have not seen much attention since being filed (and don't seem to be
> bothering our production users). 

I think we should tread the once as blockers, which are
- security/acl relevant
- may cause directory inconsistency.
- allow DoS attacks by doing

E.g. https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8620
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8621
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8638
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8929
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9089
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8077
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9029

I still need to file some new bugs...

> That covers the AD side of the house, but clearly there is a massive
> development effort ongoing for the SMB3 support.  This is really
> important, as it not only emphasises that Samba 4.0 is a major leap
> forward across all of our many parts, but it also gives us a chance to
> get SMB3 (even without many of the optional features) into the hands of
> our users.  
> 
> My question on SMB3 is: Are we at or nearing a point in that development
> effort where it is logical to pause and release?  

I would like to have initial support for durable handles (SMB 2.0/2.1)
in the final release, we made good progress in last months, but there's
still some cleanup to be done before it's ready for master.

See
https://gitweb.samba.org/?p=metze/samba/wip.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/master3-durable

This branch has also support for durable handles v2 (SMB3), but we
may need to add some more input validation there (we need to test
against windows).

There're some other we need to check regarding input validation,
(related to the replay and channel sequence stuff in SMB3).

I have SMB3 encryption almost ready, but as Windows clients doesn't
behave exactly as documented, I need to have some minor details
in this branch:
https://gitweb.samba.org/?p=metze/samba/wip.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/master3-signing

We're working hard to get this ready before the SDC.
The plan is to change the default for "server max protocol" to SMB3,
and get as much testing as possible during the SDC.
If we're happy with the result we can keep that default for the final
release.

It would be really nice if we could get SMB2/3 support for smbclient
for 4.0.0, because that would mean admin don't have to wait Samba,
in order to disable SMB1 (as proposed by Microsoft if all clients
are at least at Windows Vista level). But I think that's not a blocker
for our release.

> We also still need help with manpages, documentation of new smb.conf
> options.  
> 
> Finally, this brings us to timing, and the challenges and opportunities
> presented by the upcoming SDC event and plugfest at Microsoft.
> 
> We could release RC1 before SDC
> http://snia.org/events/storage-developer2012/plugfest (starts 16 Sept)
> and the Microsoft AD plugfest (ends 28 Sept).  However, then if we find
> issues (and that is the express purpose of such events) we will need to
> go via the full bug+patch process for all of them.  
> 
> Or we could release RC1 after both events, but that starts to be early
> October, and that seems like a long delay, and I for one will be pretty
> exhausted after jet-lag and 2 weeks of travel, putting any RC1 into mid
> October at the earliest.  That in turn makes it harder to get a release
> actually made in 2012. 
> 
> The other disadvantage is that while conferences are a great goal to aim
> at for releases, the quick-and-dirty development style (needed to
> isolate issues quickly) may simply mean we either have patches in the
> tree that are not totally ready (simply because they were prepared under
> pressure) or we have a long delay as we wait for folks to work though
> their backlog.

I'm ok with before or after the events, we'll need rc2, rc3 later anyway.

metze

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20120813/22463363/attachment.pgp>