I have a printer share "lp" on my Samba server "mentalis". The security level is set to "share". From the Windows system, mounting the shared directory works fine. However, if I try to print to \\mentalis\lp I get the following in the log file: [2007/06/16 22:42:51, 0] smbd/negprot.c:reply_nt1(317) reply_nt1: smb signing is incompatible with share level security ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Note: I *always* get the above message, even for file sharing, and regardless of what settings I use in the Windows security setup.) [2007/06/16 22:42:51, 1] smbd/service.c:make_connection_snum(1033) 192.168.160.198 (192.168.160.198) connect to service lp initially as user nobody (uid=99, gid=99) (pid 29245) [2007/06/16 22:42:51, 0] lib/fault.c:fault_report(41) =============================================================== [2007/06/16 22:42:51, 0] lib/fault.c:fault_report(42) INTERNAL ERROR: Signal 11 in pid 29245 (3.0.25a-3.fc7) Please read the Trouble-Shooting section of the Samba3-HOWTO [2007/06/16 22:42:51, 0] lib/fault.c:fault_report(44) From: http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/Samba3-HOWTO.pdf [2007/06/16 22:42:51, 0] lib/fault.c:fault_report(45) =============================================================== [2007/06/16 22:42:51, 0] lib/util.c:smb_panic(1654) PANIC (pid 29245): internal error [2007/06/16 22:42:51, 0] lib/util.c:log_stack_trace(1758) BACKTRACE: 10 stack frames: #0 smbd(log_stack_trace+0x2d) [0x80242c3d] #1 smbd(smb_panic+0x5d) [0x80242d6d] #2 smbd [0x8022d75a] #3 [0xc3f420] #4 smbd(reply_printopen+0xc9) [0x800847e9] #5 smbd [0x800c4f10] #6 smbd(smbd_process+0x836) [0x800c5fa6] #7 smbd(main+0xbdd) [0x8031f28d] #8 /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe0) [0x95af70] #9 smbd [0x8004a021] [2007/06/16 22:42:51, 0] lib/fault.c:dump_core(181) dumping core in /var/log/samba/cores/smbd !!! There is no core dump produced for some reason. My smb.conf file looks like this (some values changed for privacy reasons): # Global parameters [global] workgroup = XXXXXXX server string = %h file server (Samba %v) netbios name = MENTALIS hosts allow = 192.168.xxx. security = share update encrypted = Yes log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log max log size = 50 server signing = auto socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=8192 SO_RCVBUF=8192 preferred master = No domain master = No dns proxy = No ldap ssl = no load printers = Yes printing = cups cups options = raw [homes] comment = Home Directories read only = No browseable = No [printers] comment = All Printers path = /var/spool/samba printable = Yes public = Yes guest ok = Yes writeable = No browseable = No [lp] comment = Created by redhat-config-printer 0.6.x path = /var/spool/samba read only = No public = Yes guest ok = Yes printable = Yes printer name = lp share modes = No [SharedArea] path = /home/private/Shared username = someuser read only = No guest ok = Yes Testparm does not give me any errors. The version I am running is the 3.0.25a which is included in Fedora 7.
P.S.: I also get this message in smbd.log: [2007/06/16 22:42:31, 0] lib/util_tdb.c:tdb_log(662) tdb(/var/lib/samba/printing/lp.tdb): tdb_rec_read bad magic 0xd9fee666 at offset=35812
Created attachment 2767 [details] Patch Can you try the attached patch? The signing message you get has to do with your "server signing = auto", you should leave that at default. Volker
Sorry, Volker, I can't at this time. I am using only the Samba binaries from the Fedora 7 distribution. I'm not that concerned about the signing issue too much, as I am able to access the Linux shares from the Windoze machines. It's the panic I get while trying to print to my printer (lp) on my Linux server (mentalis). I used to be able to do that in FC6, until I performed a couple of updates (FC6 update, then upgrade to F7, also updates on the Win machines). I can't backtrack to say exactly at which point in the upgrade process that printing stopped working, unfortunately. To me, this is a real show-stopper ! Thanks for the idea anyways, maybe someone else can try it and let us all know ?
set 'disable spoolss = yes' MS-RPC printing is not really supported when with share mode security although we should be crashing.
What do you want us to do here now? If you can't test a patch, you need to get someone from Fedora to get you updated RPMs. Volker
(In reply to comment #5) > What do you want us to do here now? If you can't test a patch, you need to get > someone from Fedora to get you updated RPMs. > > Volker > Sigh......it IS the latest..... Name : samba Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 3.0.25a Vendor: Fedora Project Release : 3.fc7 Build Date: Tue Jun 5 17:51:55 2007 Install Date: Tue Jun 26 14:45:24 2007 Build Host: xenbuilder1.fedora.redhat.com Group : System Environment/Daemons Source RPM: samba-3.0.25a-3.fc7.src.rpm Size : 8100795 License: GPL Signature : DSA/SHA1, Sat Jun 9 05:51:38 2007, Key ID b44269d04f2a6fd2 Packager : Fedora Project URL : http://www.samba.org/ Summary : The Samba Suite of programs Is Fedora aware of your patch ? Are Andrew Tridgeall et al aware of it ? That is not MY responsibility..... Since the version of Samba I am running is up to date, should/will there be a 3.0.25b release in the near future ? Just for the "fun of it", I downgraded to whatever version the original FC6 used (3.0.23c I think) - same problem. It looks more and more like M$ did something to SMB which broke "something".....I'll poke around a bit and see what I can find.
(In reply to comment #4) > set 'disable spoolss = yes' MS-RPC printing is not really > supported when with share mode security although we should be crashing. > Hi Jerry.....OK, then, what is the "preferred" security setting ? I'm using share since it seemed to be the only way I could print, etc., without having to log onto the server every time. I'm the only user (this is a home setup) so I'm not too concerned with others accessing things on my systems.
(In reply to comment #6) > Sigh......it IS the latest..... > ... > Is Fedora aware of your patch ? Are Andrew Tridgeall et al > aware of it ? That is not MY responsibility..... This may seem a bit blunt but.... Volker has been a part of the core team since about the time Tridge started hacking on Samba in the first place. So whether Tridge knows about this patch or not is irrelevant. Your comments could be considered extremely rude but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Secondly, neither Volker nor I will check in untested patches like this. So testing is YOUR responsibility unless you are like one of many who expect much without giving anything back in return. > Since the version of Samba I am running is up to date, should/will > there be a 3.0.25b release in the near future ? We released 3.0.25b a few hours ago. If you had tested this patch for us it might have made it in. But as it stands, someone must verify the fix and since you have a reproducible test case, You are the most likely candidate. You other option is to talk to Simo Sorce who maintains the RedHat/Fedora packages and is another Samba developer. But he will also ask for assistance in verifying the patch. PS: All the packaging files are in samba-3.0.X/packaging/RHEL so you can simply patch the source and rebuild the RPMS yourself.
(In reply to comment #7) > Hi Jerry.....OK, then, what is the "preferred" security setting > I'm using share since it seemed to be the only way I could > print, etc., without having to log onto the server every > time. I'm the only user (this is a home setup) so > I'm not too concerned with others accessing things on my systems. Check the documentation on "map to guest" and "security = user". The "disable spoolss" option will disable the async printer notification code path and may avoid the segv you are seeing until we can find someone with a repro test case willing to test patches. cheers, jerry >
(In reply to comment #6) > It looks more and more like M$ did something to SMB which broke > "something".....I'll poke around a bit and see what I can find. Now I remember, the problem started when I did a Windows Update..... HOWEVER.....after re-installing Samba with the Fedora 7 version, printing now works !!!!!!! YAY !!!! I wish I knew what went wrong.....but methinks that this "bug" is no longer an issue. I'll exercise my setup for a few days before declaring it so. I am still getting the signing error message, but as I said earlier, it does not appear to be a problem for me. Thanks, Volker and Jerry, for your suggestions. Discussion is always welcome. :-)
(In reply to comment #2) > Can you try the attached patch? The signing message you get has to do with your > "server signing = auto", you should leave that at default. OK....I managed to figure out how to apply the patch and rebuild from Fedora's source files (I've never done that before, so this is "new" to me). Unfortunately, it didn't seem to solve the problem, I'm still getting the message. Hope that helps......
Can you please upload a tcpdump of a client that triggers this patch? You can find some hints how to do sniffs under http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Capture_Packets. Volker
Created attachment 2785 [details] Raw packet dump
Created attachment 2786 [details] Formatted (from raw data file using -vv option) packet dump
(In reply to comment #12) > Can you please upload a tcpdump of a client that triggers this patch? You can > find some hints how to do sniffs under > http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Capture_Packets. > > Volker > Sure thing, I sent the info as attachments (comments 13 & 14).
Hmm. In this sniff the client perfectly correctly ends the connection. It does not show the crash. Can you get a sniff reproducing the crash and send the corresponding debug level 10 log of smbd? Thanks, Volker
(In reply to comment #16) > Hmm. In this sniff the client perfectly correctly ends the connection. It does > not show the crash. Can you get a sniff reproducing the crash and send the > corresponding debug level 10 log of smbd? > > Thanks, > > Volker > Hi Volker, I can't seem to be able to reproduce the problem at this time. Jerry's suggestion to disable spoolss doesn't seem to make any difference now. I'll try to dig into it further this weekend....it's a long weekend in Canada, so...... :-))))) BTW - the sharing message still happens despite your suggested patch, and I have confirmed that the patch was properly done to the source file which I used to build my new RPMs. Is it perhaps possible to have the patch kick out something to syslog which could indicate if the code was actually called ? Just a thought....... BTW2 - I must apologize for my "rant" the other day, this is my first foray into bug reports, etc., especially for Open Source development. I didn't do my "homework" obviously. I had no intention of treading on anybody's toes... and it was not in any way way meant to be derogatory......thanks for your understanding.