Converting SMB1 tests to SMB2

Ralph Boehme slow at
Thu Dec 5 11:14:37 UTC 2019

Hi Noel,

On 12/4/19 10:38 AM, Noel Power wrote:
> On 03/12/2019 15:18, Ralph Boehme wrote:
>> Many, many torture test really could be run only against one env instead
>> of ad_dc and nt4_dc, eg
>> samba3.base -> fileserver (and then fileserver_smb1)
>> samba3.raw -> dito
>> But that is probably a lot of work only saving one smb1 env.
> so just to be clear, for example samba3.base .* tests run generally in
> one or more of three environments (ad_dc, fileserver, nt4_dc) either
> fileserver *or* both (ad_dc & nt4_dc) so you propose as a general rule
> we run all these tests now in fileserver ? (realising of course there
> may be some tests that for some reason really do need to run in ad_dc or
> nt4_dc but not both)
> and same proposal for samba3.raw (which uses ad_dc, nt4_dc or
> *simpleserver*) so again run all in fileserver ?

Yes, for the basic SMB tests. For more complex stuff like RPC or auth we
may want to keep the coverage.

The duplication with all started with

Note that I'm not saying it's required to roll back now as part of the
smb1 endevaour. We can keep the duplication as it only costs us one
additional smb1 env (nt4_dc_smb1).

> I know these are probably boring questions but currently while I
> understand a bit about the mechanics of how the test system works I
> don't really have any knowledge about the environments and what they
> target, when you should use one instead of another etc. So... hopefully
> you will understand why I currently look for specific (and probably
> obvious to everyone else) details

Not obvious to me as well, I ressort to git blame and git log FILE for
this stuff. :)

Fwiw, feel free to call my anytime!

> [...]
>>> & >= SMB2 the following environments are affected
>>> e.g. The following are just a few examples of legitimate tests (that
>>> don't need porting) that currently would fail if run against
>>> environments that cannot negotiate SMB1
>>> samba3.blackbox.acl_xattr.NT1\(fileserver\)
>> remove this one, only run the SMB3 variant.
>>> samba3.blackbox.inherit_owner.default.NT1\(fileserver\)
>> dito. Also likely true for all the other blackbox tests that run NT1 and
>> SMB3. BUt again please make micro commits so we can review and test
>> individually.
>>> samba3.blackbox.smbclient_basic.NT1\(nt4_dc_schannel\)
>> remove it.
>>> samba3.blackbox.smbclient_large_file -mNT1 -e NTLM\(nt4_dc:local\)
>> remove it.
> I thought from previous conversations that there was a requirement to
> leave all SMB1 tests intact and running until the SMB1 code is removed?


> Is this no longer a requirement or is there a special rule to use when
> wielding the ax (just to be clear I am not opposed to remove SMB1 tests
> :-) I just want to understand to understand the ambiguity (or realise if
> I misunderstood)

Well, generally we should keep the tests, yes, if posssible. Sorry, this
part of the swapfile was on a bad disk sector. :)


Ralph Boehme, Samba Team      
Samba Developer, SerNet GmbH
GPG-Fingerprint   FAE2C6088A24252051C559E4AA1E9B7126399E46

More information about the samba-technical mailing list