[Samba] PANIC and delayed drive mapping?

[MCCALL,DON (HP-USA,ex1)]

Yes, as far as I know.
Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Kerns, Mike [mailto:mike.kerns at boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:59 PM
To: 'samba at lists.samba.org'; 'MCCALL,DON (HP-USA,ex1)'
Subject: RE: [Samba] PANIC and delayed drive mapping?


Hiya, Don!

Yes, this has helped!

Does 2.2.3a have the same need for a positive integer uid/gid guest user?

I just put 2.2.3a on a test server and the performance is much better.

Thanks for your help!

Mike

> ----------
> From: 	MCCALL,DON (HP-USA,ex1)[SMTP:don_mccall at hp.com]
> Sent: 	Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:49 AM
> To: 	'Kerns, Mike'; 'samba at lists.samba.org'
> Subject: 	RE: [Samba] PANIC and delayed drive mapping?
> 
> Hi Mike;
> 2.0.7 defaults 'guest account' to the user nobody, which has a uid of -1
> and
> gid of -2; 
> samba will core on negative uid/gid pairs.  The HPUX version (CIFS/9000)
> defaults the 
> guest account to 'smbnull' and adds an smbnull user (with positive uid/gid
> pair) for this
> reason.
> to fix this simply add the "guest account = <some valid user made for this
> purpose>" to 
> the global section of smb.conf
> 
> The ioctl error means just what it says - the client requested an ioctl
> that
> we don't 
> implement - usually not a big deal; clients will typically get this
> response
> back and fall
> back on some other method to accomplish what they wanted to do.
> 
> The get share modes error is cleanup from the fact that the previous
> connection cored, and 
> left information in the sharemodes table.  again no big deal - when you
> clean up the 
> guest account, this will go away.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Don
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kerns, Mike [mailto:mike.kerns at boeing.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:25 PM
> To: 'samba at lists.samba.org'
> Subject: [Samba] PANIC and delayed drive mapping?
> 
> 
> Hiya!
> 
> Samba 2.0.7 on HP-UX 11.0.
> 
> When a user tries to map a drive, the smb.log shows the following:
> 
> NOTE:  the stanza ending in PANIC repeats 3 times, snipped here for
> brevity
> 
> =====================================
> 
> [2002/02/28 11:12:43, 1] smbd/server.c:(641)
>   smbd version 2.0.7 started.
>   Copyright Andrew Tridgell 1992-1998
> [2002/02/28 11:12:43, 1] smbd/files.c:(215)
>   file_init: Information only: requested 16000 open files, 2038 are
> available.
> 	(I know I need to change the above, will regen the kernel later or
> is
> 	  this causing the problem?  Mike)
> [2002/02/28 11:12:50, 1] smbd/service.c:(550)
>   e213845 (134.52.222.4) connect to service <USER> as user <USER>
> (uid=108,
> gid=23) (pid 18684)
> [2002/02/28 11:12:50, 0] lib/util_sec.c:(69)
>   Failed to set gid privileges to (-1,-2) now set to (0,0) uid=(0,0)
> [2002/02/28 11:12:50, 0] lib/util.c:(2381)
>   PANIC: failed to set gid
> 
> [2002/02/28 11:12:50, 1] smbd/server.c:(641)
>   smbd version 2.0.7 started.
>   Copyright Andrew Tridgell 1992-1998
> [2002/02/28 11:12:50, 1] smbd/files.c:(215)
>   file_init: Information only: requested 16000 open files, 2038 are
> available.
> [2002/02/28 11:12:58, 1] smbd/service.c:(550)
>   e213845 (134.52.222.4) connect to service <USER>  as user <USER>
> (uid=108, gid=23) (pid 18705)
> [2002/02/28 11:12:58, 1] smbd/service.c:(550)
>   e213845 (134.52.222.4) connect to service <USER>  as user <USER>
> (uid=108,
> gid=23) (pid 18705)
> [2002/02/28 11:12:58, 1] smbd/service.c:(581)
>   e213845 (134.52.222.4) closed connection to service <USER> 
> [2002/02/28 11:13:04, 0] smbd/nttrans.c:(2516)
>   call_nt_transact_ioctl: Currently not implemented.
> [2002/02/28 11:13:04, 0] locking/locking_shm.c:(213)
>   get_share_modes: process 18407 no longer exists
> [2002/02/28 11:13:04, 0] locking/locking_shm.c:(240)
>   get_share_modes: file with dev 40000008 inode 592 empty
> 
> =====================================================
> 
> Question #1:  Why does it "Failed to set gid privileges to (-1,-2) now set
> to (0,0) uid=(0,0)"?
> 
> Question #2:  What does the "call_nt_transact_ioctl: Currently not
> implemented." error imply?
> 
> Question #3:  What does the two "get_share_modes" error imply?
> 
> TIA,
> 
> Mike
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
>