[Samba] [PATCH] Re: Samba 4.1.17 classic update w/LDAP - parsing error

[Mgr. Peter Tuharsky]

As of 4, I have tested import of renamed domain and the classicupdate is
still parsing badly. So the netbios name seems not to be an issue for now.

Dňa 24.09.2015 o 10:45 Mgr. Peter Tuharsky napísal(a):
> Hi all,
>
> thank You for Your answers and the help.
>
> 1, I have never applied a patch to Samba in Debian. Please, is there any
> howto or documentation?
> 2, If the patch worked for the import, would it be possible to revert to
> a distributional (unpatched) Samba afterwards?
> 3, We don't use any of the mentioned symbols in group names, just . and -
> 4, Unfortunately, we have a . in the NT4 (netbios) domain name. We
> already have issues with that, but only in Windows 8. Could this be the
> reason of the import error? I doubt that though because other import
> steps finished flawlessly, including netbios name registration during
> import process.
> 5, (Might be OT, depending on previous answer): If needed in order to
> resolve the problem, is it possible to simply and without consequences
> change the domain (netbios) name in LDAP, providing that SID would
> remain untouched and change in smb.conf would reflect the new name? Or
> the Windows clients use both the netbios name and SID in order to access
> their domain and they would drop off domain?
>
> Peter
>
> Dňa 24.09.2015 o 09:57 Andrew Bartlett napísal(a):
>> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 09:12 +0200, Michael Wood wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> On 23 Sep 2015 9:47 PM, "Andrew Bartlett" <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 06:59 +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>>> That looks like a bug.  My guess is that, as Roland suggested,
>>> the
>>>>> group name isn't just normal characters.  We do support other
>>> chars
>>>>> in
>>>>> group names, but the bug here was not to escape the values.  You
>>>>> could
>>>>> expect a particular problem with any of these in particular: =,()
>>>> Can you confirm this patch (against master, but should apply back
>>> to
>>>> 4.1) works for you?
>>>>
>>>> If so, can I get a second team member to review/push?
>>> Does that still result in them being in CN=Users? Or is that not
>>> important?
>> Indeed, that is what I get for writing patches at 7 in the morning :-)
>>
>> Try the attached.  We really, really need some good expected-value
>> testing of the upgrade system.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrew Bartlett
>>
>