----- Forwarded message from Gordon Haverland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
From: Gordon Haverland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Matter Realisations To: Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#427986: samba: not permitted access to share IPC$ Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:19:01 -0600 X-CRM114-Status: Good ( pR: 999.99 ) On June 7, 2007, you wrote: > Quoting Gordon Haverland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > In searching for answers, I ran across lots of bug reports > > where this seems to be a symptom, but hadn't run across > > solutions. So, there are probably a few different things > > which create this IPC$ symptom. I can work with the setup I > > eventually created, so I don't need a resolution to this. [ ... ] > Well, part from the above explanations, could you post your > smb.conf, explain exactly what problem is happening and > eventually post level 3 logs (at first attempt....). > > Up to now, we're mostly in the dark to understand what your > problem might be. > > I seem to understand you're using "valid users" in the > [globals] section. If you do so, don't be surprised to get > unexpected results. "valid users" is a "share" parameters as > explained in the smb.conf manpage (funnily, it seems to work > slightly but that may be mor ea kind of side effect than > anything really intended). 1. When I speak of bug reports involving IPC$, I am speaking of Samba globally, not specifically Debian bug reports. Are you familiar with people not being able to establish connections to Samba, with error messages involving permissions of IPC$? In the many threads involving that kind of error I looked down, I didn't see any solutions. It is likely that what caused this "problem" here is not what caused it elsewhere. However, this seems to be reproducible. It isn't a problem here, as I gave up on that approach. I thought sending this in might help in helping to track down this kind of error for others. 2. I was using Windows Explorer on XP-Home for testing with Samba. In watching the logs, you see an initial contact made from a machine in a workgroup, with no user field. After a bit of processing, Samba decides this is a logon by smbguest. Samba wants to do some more stuff, and to do so it needs to use the IPC$ share. This fails, as smbguest isn't on the list of valid users, with this error message: [2007/06/05 15:39:50, 2] smbd/uid.c:change_to_user(193) change_to_user: SMB user (unix user smbguest, vuid 101) not permitted access to share IPC$. [2007/06/05 15:39:50, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection_snum(928) Can't become connected user! [2007/06/05 15:39:50, 3] smbd/connection.c:yield_connection(69) Yielding connection to IPC$ [2007/06/05 15:39:50, 3] smbd/error.c:error_packet_set(106) error packet at smbd/reply.c(514) cmd=117 (SMBtconX) NT_STATUS_LOGON_FAILURE 3. This is an error on my part, as I don't understand M$/Samba interactions. I wanted to set things up so that only a particular user had any kind of contact with Samba. Hence the reason to put the "valid users" in the globals section. However, it seems that the anonymous user (here called smbguest, with no password) must be allowed some access to certain shares, just in order for things like browsing the network neighbourhood (using windows explorer) and logons to happen. As I said, I think perhaps testparm should look out for this, as it seems to indicate a configuration that won't work, or won't work without the machine/workgroup mapping set up. Does this make more sense? Gord ** CRM114 Whitelisted by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** ----- End forwarded message ----- --
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
