This bug makes it impossible to use the backupadmin that comes with windows 2003
to backup files from samba shares.
When you use explorer and browses files on a share like \\samba\someshare it
works fine, and when you use "net use" to bind it to a sharename, like S:
browsing also works.
The problem starts when you want to select a share to backup in "Backup
Utility". When you select (for instance) S: you get a dialog with "access to
this device or folder has been denied.". No more, no less.
I've read in the mailinglist and learned that other people is experiencing the
same problem, but people doesn't seem to have resolved it yet. I've read that
using UNC paths in "Backup Utility" would work, but I haven't managed to that
This is the only output I get with loglevel 3 (when I click on the share in
[2004/07/14 12:17:19, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(890)
Transaction 16 of length 92
[2004/07/14 12:17:19, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(685)
switch message SMBntcreateX (pid 7877)
[2004/07/14 12:17:19, 3] smbd/open.c:open_directory(1356)
open_directory: unable to stat name = .. Error was Success
[2004/07/14 12:17:19, 3] smbd/error.c:error_packet(118)
error packet at smbd/trans2.c(2222) cmd=162 (SMBntcreateX) NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED
I'm running a compiled version of samba 3.0.4 on an debian (stable). Erlier
versions of samba (as of 2.x branch) has worked with no problem. I have also
tried to use "Backup Utility" on my debian unstable with the samba-3.0.4 package
but I am experiencing the same problem there.
Thank you for your hard work!
This is fixed in 3.0.5rc1. Could you please check and report back?
i have the same problem with debian sarge.
it has appeard with 3.0.4, today 3.0.5 went into sarge, i've made a update, but
i still have the same problem.
*** Bug 1563 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Yes, 3.0.5 is technically just 3.0.4 + 2 security fixes. Thus you won't benefit
from the fix which is part of 3.0.5rc1, but not of 3.0.5. I know, this is confusing.
Have you actually tried 3.0.5rc1, if not: could you give 3.0.5rc1 a try ?
I've tried compiling 3.0.5rc1, and there everything works just as it should (for
me anyway, (smbfs and quota).(In reply to comment #4)
> Yes, 3.0.5 is technically just 3.0.4 + 2 security fixes. Thus you won't benefit
> from the fix which is part of 3.0.5rc1, but not of 3.0.5. I know, this is
> Have you actually tried 3.0.5rc1, if not: could you give 3.0.5rc1 a try ?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1404 ***