[Samba] Problem after update version 4.15.0

[Ingo Asche]

Hi Andrew,

by mistake I done the second one (git checkout 
22d500ec5411c3e0e82711217b15e3a6e52e0224) first. Does this matter?

But the result was - as I think you hoped - that with the "git revert 
997fbcbc902" the login worked.

I will do the other one tomorrow.

Regards
Ingo

Andrew Bartlett schrieb am 14.10.2021 um 11:24:
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>