[Samba] Unable to successfully join Samba 4.8.0 or Windows 2008 R2 to a Samba 4.6.7 DC, unable to upgrade in-place
jforeman at dignitastechnologies.com
Tue Mar 20 03:14:34 UTC 2018
Is there a sensible way for me to manually remove the duplicate SPNs in the mean time?
> On Mar 17, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-03-17 at 07:34 +1300, Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical
>> On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 16:10 -0400, Justin Foreman wrote:
>>> Okay. The master build worked on the join. Excellent. So it was 4.8.0 having a problem.
>>> I’ve attempted to join 2008 R2 now to 4.8.0 but it still blue screens. Should I start a new thread for clarity’s sake?
>> So, I think this, the upgrade issues and even the old
>> servicePrincipalName handling bug is all the same thing.
>> What happened is that in the past we did not reject:
>> servicePrincipalName: HOST/foo
>> servicePrincipalName: host/foo
> To further tie threads together, that would be:
>> Then with 4.8 the index code rejected this. With master for 4.9 we
>> decided it wasn't the index code's job to do this, so fixed that (it
>> helped another use case).
>> Add to this the upgrade code for GUID indexes didn't assert that if the
>> re-index failed that we must abort the transaction, so the partial
>> upgrade case gets committed and it all dies on the next DB open.
>> At least that is the theory I'll be working to prove or disprove on
>> I think the core short-term fix is in:
>> commit 5c1504b94d1417894176811f18c5d450de22cfd2
>> Author: Gary Lockyer <gary at catalyst.net.nz>
>> Date: Wed Feb 28 11:47:22 2018 +1300
>> ldb_tdb: Do not fail in GUID index mode if there is a duplicate
>> It is not the job of the index code to enforce this, but do give a
>> a warning given it has been detected.
>> However, now that we do allow it, we must never return the same
>> object twice to the caller, so filter for it in
>> The GUID list is sorted, which makes this cheap to handle,
>> Signed-off-by: Gary Lockyer <gary at catalyst.net.nz>
>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall at catalyst.net.nz>
>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org>
>> The replication to windows may be failing because of the duplicate
>> value, eventually we will need to write a dbcheck rule to fix that.
>> Thanks all for your patience!
>> Andrew Bartlett
> Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
> Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
> Samba Developer, Catalyst IT http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
More information about the samba