Bug 15512 - wide links = yes breaks DFS links
Summary: wide links = yes breaks DFS links
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Samba 4.1 and newer
Classification: Unclassified
Component: File services (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P5 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ralph Böhme
QA Contact: Samba QA Contact
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2023-11-06 11:42 UTC by Ralph Böhme
Modified: 2023-11-07 02:46 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ralph Böhme 2023-11-06 11:42:33 UTC 
Just noticed that "wide links = yes" breaks DFS links: in a directory listing the DFS links will be missing:

slow@inti:v419$ grep "wide links" /opt/samba/etc/smb.conf
    allow insecure wide links = yes
    wide links = yes
slow@inti:v419$ bin/smbclient -U slow%x //localhost/dfs -c ls
  .                                   D        0  Mon Nov  6 12:20:57 2023
  ..                                  D        0  Mon Nov  6 12:20:57 2023
  file                                N        0  Thu Mar 30 18:44:42 2023
  dir                                 D        0  Mon Nov  6 12:21:55 2023


slow@inti:v419$ grep "wide links" /opt/samba/etc/smb.conf
#    allow insecure wide links = yes
#    wide links = yes

slow@inti:v419$ bin/smbclient -U slow%x //localhost/dfs -c ls
  .                                   D        0  Mon Nov  6 12:20:57 2023
  ..                                  D        0  Mon Nov  6 12:20:57 2023
  dfs1                               Dr        0  Sun Aug 28 10:38:58 2022
  file                                N        0  Thu Mar 30 18:44:42 2023
  dir                                 D        0  Mon Nov  6 12:21:55 2023

In 4.18 it's still working.
Comment 1 Jeremy Allison 2023-11-07 00:52:10 UTC 
FYI. If this is not for an urgent customer request, I'm quite happy with the fix for that being a documentation note saying "don't do that then" :-).
Comment 2 Jeremy Allison 2023-11-07 00:53:54 UTC 
If this is going to complicate the upper layer symlink handling then IMHO this is not an urgent bug to fix. If we can fix is with a simple hack inside source3/modules/vfs_widelinks.c then yeah, OK, go for it.

But don't make the upper-layer fileserver's life harder than it already is :-).