[Samba] Browse list issues with Windows XP

[Wesley Hobbie]

Actually, it is a bug, bug #1221:
"It traced down to the following change from samba 2.2.x to 3.0 in
lib/util_str.c:next_token():

-               if (*s == '\"') {
+               if (*s == '\"' || *s == '\'') {
                        quoted = !quoted;
                } else {
                        len++;
                        *pbuf++ = *s;
                }

This function is used in lanman.c:get_server_info(), to
tokenize lines from browse.dat."
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1221

> That is interesting, I will admit that my Computer Description field does
> have an apostrophy (single quote) in it.  So, if that is the case, I think
> it is a bug, and as of 3.0, because I never had a problem with the
> apostrophy in the Computer Description field on 2.2.8a, and Windows does
not
> have a problem with apostrophies in the computer description.
>
>> Check out the Computer Description field.  I found that if there is a
>> special character (single quote) in this field, then the PC would not
>> display in the browse list.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>> To further the discussion (or lack thereof) of the browse list issues
>>> (systems not showing up in the browse list, even though their shares are
>>> accessable with //system/sharename) that 5 or 10 people on the list have
>>> been having over the past month or so...
>>>
>>> I was out to this client the other day, had the opportunity to try the
few
>>> things that had been suggested, all to no avail.  I then proceeded to
join
>>> a
>>> new machine to the domain, after I had it all set up I happened to
stumble
>>> into Network Neighborhood and to my shock and awe there was the new
system
>>> showing up (along with the server which had always been visible).  The
>>> other
>>> workstations are still not visible however.  I went on to the server and
>>> ran
>>> smbtree and it happily listed the shares on the server, and on the new
>>> workstation... but no others.
>>>
>>> There have been no changes to the samba configuration, so that can
safely
>>> be
>>> eliminated as the cause... likewise both the new and old machines have
all
>>> updates applied, so that reduces (it's microsoft so can't guarantee that
>>> it
>>> eliminates completely) the chances that its caused by a microsoft patch.
>>>
>>> I have checked wins.dat and browse.dat (browse.txt, the exact name
escapes
>>> me) and I can't see any obvious differences for the entries for the new
>>> machine vs. the existing systems.
>>>
>>> This should be relatively easy to troubleshoot now that I have working
and
>>> non-working examples on the same server...  if someone has suggestions
of
>>> where to look?  Is there anything in any of the .tdb files that would
have
>>> any bearing on a machine showing in network neighborhood or not?  A
viewer
>>> to peek at those files and look for any differences at all?  Any ideas?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Mike <<<<<