When smbd is used in an environment with no domain controller, it generates this syslog message upon startup: nt_printing_init: error checking published printers: WERR_ACCESS_DENIED This isn't actually an error condition, so no error should be logged. I will attach a patch.
Created attachment 1254 [details] patch to disable unnecessary error message when no DC
I don't understand. The call is bracketd in if ( lp_security() == SEC_ADS ) { win_rc = check_published_printers(); if (!W_ERROR_IS_OK(win_rc)) DEBUG(0, ("nt_printing_init: error checking published printers: %s\n", dos_errstr(win_rc))); } so if there are no domain controllers, what is the point of running 'security = ads'?
I don't understand your question. Can you ask it again with a bit more detail?
I guess my original question was related to the fact there are no domain controllers. I assume that this is really a problem in the environment. Because running 'security = ads' with no DC's available ever would just not make sense. The call to check_published_printers() is only made when 'security = ads'. Sorry for being dense here, but is seems to me that this is a real issue that should be logged. smbd cannot check on the published printer attributes because there is no DC available foir its domain (which is an error).
I have "security = user" in my smb.conf file and have had that setting for the last four years, so I don't think your assertion that this call only happens when "security = ads" is true, unless that code has changed since I filed this bug report.
The change was made in r2955: ---- r2955 | jerry | 2004-10-13 14:40:22 -0500 (Wed, 13 Oct 2004) | 1 line fixing a segfault uncovered by the changes for BUG 1519 ----- The code has been this way since 3.0.8. There is one one call to check_published_printers() in the code. and that call is wrapped in 'if ( lp_security() == SEC_ADS ) ... ' If you upload a log file for 'smbd -d 10 -i' and your smb,conf, I'll pursue this some more. But based on the current code (and even in 3.0.14a), your patch appears unecessary.
Well, I'll be darned. I can't duplicate the problem now, and from your description, it definitely seems like I should never have seen it in the first place. I can't explain what happened, but I'm certainly sorry to trouble you about this! If I do manage to figure out how to get it to happen the first time, I'll reopen the ticket.
For what it's worth I'm running with "security = ads" on a standalone Samba server so that it can do Kerberos authentication. I followed the directions on https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Samba/Kerberos So I'm seeing this error message.