Releasing Samba 4.0 RC1?

[Nadezhda Ivanova]

With the current LDAP acl missing functionality, I don't know if RC is
feasible... Unfortunately I am not able to work on this at the moment, or
in the near future. If someone wants to do it I will help, but I am not in
a position anymore to maintain this code...

Regards,
Nadya

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 11:01 +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> > 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
>
> The challenge I see with this list is that all of these issues have been
> known about for quite some time (most more than a year).  How do can we
> reasonably block the release when we have no reasonable prospect that
> someone will step up and fix them?
>
> > I still need to file some new bugs...
>
> Even with this just this list, given current resources working on AD
> stuff, I just don't see how we can fix these.  In the meantime, our
> users seem very happy to deploy our current code, and I would prefer to
> warn them about these challenges than deny them a stable release because
> of them.
>
> Do you have any time to address these?  (From the below, it seems you
> will be pretty busy on SMB3 stuff)
>
> > > 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
>
> How soon do you expect to land this?
>
>
> > I'm ok with before or after the events, we'll need rc2, rc3 later anyway.
>
> It would be grand if we could really treat RC1 as a real release
> candidate, but I fear we will have a situation like 3.6 where we keep
> bluffing our vendors and users with 'this is the real RC this time,
> please test it' (while we pile more and more changes and have to release
> RC after RC).  It would be good if we could focus on RC1 as the release,
> and plan for 4.0.1 for fixes that are not earth-shattering.  Otherwise,
> the term 'release candidate' doesn't really mean anything.
>
> Andrew Bartlett
>
> --
> Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
> Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
>
>
>