[Samba] Word problem with large uid/gid

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at samba.org
Mon Apr 28 10:26:57 GMT 2003

On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 20:14, Johan Coenen wrote:
> At 01:23 26/04/2003 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> >On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 23:16, Johan Coenen wrote:
> > >>
> > >> IF   uid or gid of user > 65.535
> > >> AND  samba loglevel > 2
> > >> THEN         I have problems with saving word documents
> > >> errors on client: "disk full" "read-only" etc...
> > >>
> >
> >Not sure about the log level stuff, but try your recent glibc security
> >upgrade for the problem :-)
> Hi Andrew,
> thanks for the reply.
> I must admit, the day after we upgraded glibc to 2.2.5-43, we had one site 
> where users suddenly had problems with excel documents.
> We noticed that that was the only server which had a Samba log level of 3 
> (all the other had level 2)
> After lowering the log-level, problems went away, so we didn't investigate 
> it any further.
> I just downgraded glibc to 2.2.5-34 on our test server, did a rebuild of 
> Samba, but the problem stays the same.
> If uid > 16bit => assert_uid() failures
> if gid > 16bit => assert_gid() failures
> In our production environment:
> Despite the fact that we have many users who are having every now and then 
> problems with word, we had three "strange" cases:
> - two users started having problems saving word docs right after they 
> upgraded from off97 to off2000 (both win2000)
> - one user had the same problem right after he upgraded from Win98 to WinXP 
> (kept the same office version)
> In these three cases, problems went away after lowering their GID's.
> Can there be any reason why a change in OS or office-version suddenly 
> triggers a GID problem?

What happens is that some part of glibc doesn't check for the error
return, only the value of errno.  The last value for errno depends on
complex code paths.

I would suggest upgrading to RedHat 8.0 or 9, with the latest errata. 
Downgrading must have just resulted in slightly different code paths for
me - likewise the different client could have caused the slightly
different codepaths for you.

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org     http://build.samba.org     http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20030428/9b3272d4/attachment.bin

More information about the samba mailing list