[Samba] RE: FW: samba woes

[Johnston, Christopher (DCSA)]

Jeremy,

Thanks.. is there a fix for this sometime in the future? or is this something that has to do with GLIBC not allowing these symbols or functions to be used anymore?

If it is a bug/problem with smbsh.. the linux community is not aware of this and should be.. 

Thanks,

Christopher Johnston
Merrill Lynch / DCSA
(201) 671-2368
http://linux.worldnet.ml.com
 


-----Original Message-----
From: jra at samba.org [mailto:jra at samba.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:51 PM
To: Johnston, Christopher (DCSA)
Cc: 'samba-technical at samba.org'; 'samba at samba.org'
Subject: Re: FW: samba woes


On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 01:43:54PM -0400, Johnston, Christopher (DCSA) wrote:
>  
> Quote from Redhat:
> 
> Hi, I have an update on your issue!
> 
> A direct quote from engineering on your issue:
> 
> " As I understand it, smbsh can not work on the recent glibc versions 
> as they no longer support the LD_PRELOAD features (hacks? :) smbsh 
> employs. On non linux unix variants smbsh will still work in general 
> (they dont after all use glibc). The LD_PRELOAD user space fs simply 
> wont work on recent glibc versions alas, LD_PRELOAD itself certainly 
> still works.
> 
> " It\'s the \"back door\" symbols _open, _read, _write which allows 
> smbsh to wrap around the normal file calls, possibly redirect them to 
> smb, and then call the actual C library function using the underscore 
> functions.
> 
> The GNU C library maintainers have decided to remove support for these 
> symbols in glibc 2.1and forward.
> 
> " So, overall maybe this is the good reason of why we do not have 
> smbwrapper/smbsh shipped :-)
> 
> " I would use autofs, to do the same functionality. You\'d need a 
> program that uses libsmb (or just calls smbclient) to retrieve the 
> browse list, and reformats it into an autofs map."
> 
> Jp Robinson
> 
> I am just trying to gather some thoughts here to see if anybody has 
> has experiene with an issue like this.. this may not be a samba thing 
> but a GLIBC issue.. any ides? suggestions on what to work on next?

Yes, I'm pretty sure this is a glibc issue. I'm not sure
why (for what technical reason) the GLIBC maintainers
decided to do this, as it breaks all user level filesystems that depend on the same trick that smbsh uses.

It seems like we can only support smbsh on libc systems
which support this, that does not include Linux at this
time.

Jeremy.