[Samba] Problem after update version 4.15.0

[Ingo Asche]

Hi Guys,

the second test of git revert for 
22d500ec5411c3e0e82711217b15e3a6e52e0224 didn't worked either. I'm truly 
puzzled. I hope I done all steps correct...

I will start the bisect over to see if it get's the same point for the 
bad one...

Regards
Ingo

Ingo Asche via samba schrieb am 15.10.2021 um 20:23:
> Hi all,
>
> sorry for answering so late, but it seems the git revert didn't worked 
> on the "git checkout 997fbcbc902d945eb5261ddc6667f830fbcd5931".
>
> To be sure I have done the test two times.
>
> I will also do the test again on "git checkout 
> 22d500ec5411c3e0e82711217b15e3a6e52e0224" to be on the sure side...
>
> Regards
> Ingo
>
> Andrew Bartlett schrieb am 15.10.2021 um 11:18:
>> Thanks Günther,
>>
>> I agree, I'm really surprised also.  I was sure it was going to be a
>> regression in the KDC or such (we know of one of those), but this is
>> why we do ask for a bisect.
>>
>> I'm also really busy so just work with Ingo when you get the time, and
>> anyone else with the issue is welcome to try the same revert to confirm
>> the meantime.
>>
>> "git revert 997fbcbc902"
>>
>> Thanks so much!
>>
>> Andrew Bartlett
>>
>> On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 23:57 +0200, Günther Deschner wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> wow, how can this patch cause such a failure?
>>>
>>> The dsgetdcname interface is only used in the s3 join code
>>> (including
>>> offline joins where this patch became necessary) and in some few
>>> exotic
>>> s3 netlogon server calls as well as in winbind. Are there any
>>> logs/traces available to allow to compare success and failure
>>> without
>>> and with the patch?
>>>
>>> I guess the real cause for the failure could be more in the
>>> correctnes
>>> fixes for the returned dcinfo (like those in
>>> 22d500ec5411c3e0e82711217b15e3a6e52e0224). Maybe these changes show
>>> up
>>> visible in other places. I have started on a testsuite to test the
>>> DsGetDCname interface output at least on the netapi layer a while
>>> back
>>> but it is not finished yet. It could help to check if any of this
>>> output
>>> mismatches expectations though.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I'm out of office this and next week (and travelling
>>> over
>>> the weekend) so I cannot really research it myself right now. Sorry
>>> but
>>> I can only take a closer look again on monday.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Guenther
>>>
>>>
>
>