[Samba] static vs shared modules build

[Reindl Harald]

Am 15.03.2016 um 21:07 schrieb Miguel Medalha:
>
>> it may make sense to build others which you really use on every
>> machine statically to not need to add them in your smb.conf
>
> That's what I expected, too. Since then I made some experiences. I built
> samba 4.3.6 with a static vfs_acl_xattr module. It is builtin alright,
> it is listed under "Builtin modules" at the output of "smbd -b".
>
> Then:
> -- Comment"vfs objects = acl_xattr" from a share in smb.conf
> -- Restart all Samba services
> -- From Windows, create a folder "newfolder" in that same share
> -- Run "getfattr -n security.NTACL newfolder". getfattr outputs
> "security.NTACL: No such attribute"
> -- delete folder "newfolder"
> -- In smb.conf, remove comment from "vfs objects = acl_xattr" under the
> same share
> -- Restart all Samba services
> -- From Windows, create a folder "newfolder" in that same share
> -- Run "getfattr -n security.NTACL folder". getfattr finds the extended
> attribute and presents it correctly.
>
> So, it looks like our expectations about this didn't come to fruition.
> Shouldn't the builtin module do its job normally?

well, not sure - in fact you can configure each share with different 
"vfs objects" and so configuration likely still is needed - i referred 
more to my expierience with httpd where you don't need "LoadModule" 
lines for static compiled modules

at the end i would say it's not worth at all to spend time with that 
micro-optimization if there is any optimization at all and stick with 
defaults

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20160315/55976b50/signature.sig>