[Samba] Problem after update version 4.15.0

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 11:18 +0200, Ingo Asche wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> first step done (git revert...) so it's now 4.15.0pre1-GIT-
> 12ba3d9d8f2.
> 
> Login is again working.

Well that is awesome.  Can you checkout 'master' or 'origin/v4-15-test' 
and see if 'git revert 997fbcbc902' also builds and works?

> For the triple check that would be then
> git checkout 997fbcbc902 and
> git checkout 12ba3d9d8f2, right?

it would be 

git checkout 997fbcbc902d945eb5261ddc6667f830fbcd5931
and 
git checkout 22d500ec5411c3e0e82711217b15e3a6e52e0224

But you have pretty much done that with the revert you tried already.

The revert on master is the last key point, just so we know we can
revert that as a possible fix going forward (we can't wind back all the
other changes since).

> Can I do that at once or have I to build after both steps?

Build install test etc after each step.

Thanks!

Andrew Bartlett

> Regards
> Ingo
> 
> Andrew Bartlett via samba schrieb am 13.10.2021 um 22:11:
> > That's a very strange commit to have broken it, but try on master:
> > 
> > git revert 997fbcbc902
> > 
> > If that builds and works, then we have a simple workaround while we
> > ask
> > Günther and Alexander for help as that is:
> >   
> > commit 997fbcbc902d945eb5261ddc6667f830fbcd5931
> > Author: Günther Deschner <gd at samba.org>
> > Date:   Sat Feb 13 22:11:52 2021 +0100
> > 
> >      s3-dsgetdcname: return dcinfo also when delivering from the
> > cache.
> >      
> >      Guenther
> >      
> >      Signed-off-by: Guenther Deschner <gd at samba.org>
> >      Reviewed-by: Alexander Bokovoy <ab at samba.org>
> > 
> > But do tripple-check, by manually confirming that commit 'git
> > checkout 997fbcbc902' and the one before 'git checkout
> > 997fbcbc902^'.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > On Wed, 2021-10-13 at 20:46 +0200, Ingo Asche wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew, Hi Rowland,
> > > 
> > > found a bad one: 4.15.0pre1-GIT-997fbcbc902
> > > 
> > > After installing this one login failed. How should I proceed?
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > Ingo
> > > 
> > > Andrew Bartlett schrieb am 13.10.2021 um 00:56:
> > > > On Wed, 2021-10-13 at 10:47 +1300, Andrew Bartlett via samba
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 21:24 +0100, Rowland Penny wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 22:13 +0200, Ingo Asche wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Rowland,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I asked Andrew the same, here's what he answered:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > - Yes, you start from 4.14.0rc1 as this is the branch
> > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > master
> > > > > > > - split into 4.14 (working) and what would eventually be
> > > > > > > 4.15.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Ingo
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > Well, no one has complained about 4.14.x version, the
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > seems to exist on 4.15.0 (and I cannot get the problem to
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > myself), so surely it is something in 4.15.0. I await
> > > > > > Andrew
> > > > > > commenting
> > > > > > on this. If you do have to start from 4.14.0rc1, then you
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > going
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > be at it for sometime.
> > > > > G'Day Rowland,
> > > > > 
> > > > > A bisect does a binary search, so even across large version
> > > > > gaps
> > > > > it
> > > > > the
> > > > > increased workload in testing is minimal.  That is why we use
> > > > > that
> > > > > approach, rather than (say) linearly selecting all commits.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is exceedingly unlikely the issue was introduced after
> > > > > 4.15.0rc1,
> > > > > so
> > > > > we must start before that.  The correct spot to start is
> > > > > 4.14.0rc1 as
> > > > > discussed, master development that became 4.15 started from
> > > > > that
> > > > > point.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Somewhere between
> > > > ... that point and ...
> > > > 
> > > > >    4.15/master (they are so alike it doesn't change
> > > > > much) this regressed, and we will find it.  I've got an idea
> > > > > for
> > > > > one
> > > > > thing it might be but only testing changes speculation into
> > > > > verification.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also manual bisect testing is something our users can do that
> > > > > I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > have the time to handle right now, so it is incredibly
> > > > > valuable.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Confirming that 4.14.0rc1 works *in the test being done as
> > > > > the
> > > > > validation* is important, as otherwise we could be chasing
> > > > > the
> > > > > wrong
> > > > > thing as the decision basis.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I trust this clarifies,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Andrew Bartlett
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Andrew Bartlett (he/him)       https://samba.org/~abartlet/
> > > > > Samba Team Member (since 2001) https://samba.org
> > > > > Samba Team Lead, Catalyst IT
> > > > > https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
> > > > > 
> > > > > Samba Development and Support, Catalyst IT - Expert Open
> > > > > Source
> > > > > Solutions
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
-- 
Andrew Bartlett (he/him)       https://samba.org/~abartlet/
Samba Team Member (since 2001) https://samba.org
Samba Team Lead, Catalyst IT   https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba

Samba Development and Support, Catalyst IT - Expert Open Source
Solutions