Bug 4994 - net ads join succeeds but join does not seem valid for 15 mins or so
Summary: net ads join succeeds but join does not seem valid for 15 mins or so
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Samba 3.0
Classification: Unclassified
Component: winbind (show other bugs)
Version: 3.0.26a
Hardware: x86 Linux
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: none
Assignee: Samba Bugzilla Account
QA Contact: Samba QA Contact
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-09-26 04:08 UTC by Rick King
Modified: 2009-06-11 18:20 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Rick King 2007-09-26 04:08:36 UTC
I wonder if this isn't some AD syncronisation issue but I'm pretty sure I didn't see this with 3.0.23c. Issue also existed in 3.0.25.

We have password server = * in our config file but I have also tried setting it to one of our servers with no difference.

Example (note times):

[root@pc ~]# net ads join -U support -W domain
support's password: 
Using short domain name -- domain
Joined 'pc' to realm 'DOMAIN.COM'
[root@pc ~]# date
Wed Sep 26 04:07:13 EDT 2007
[root@pc ~]# net ads testjoin -P
[2007/09/26 04:08:36, 0] libads/kerberos.c:ads_kinit_password(228)
  kerberos_kinit_password pc$@DOMAIN.COM failed: Client not found in Kerberos database
[2007/09/26 04:08:37, 0] libads/kerberos.c:ads_kinit_password(228)
  kerberos_kinit_password pc$@DOMAIN.COM failed: Client not found in Kerberos database
Join to domain is not valid: Improperly formed account name
[root@pc ~]# net ads testjoin -P
[2007/09/26 04:12:29, 0] libads/kerberos.c:ads_kinit_password(228)
  kerberos_kinit_password pc$@DOMAIN.COM failed: Client not found in Kerberos database
[2007/09/26 04:12:30, 0] libads/kerberos.c:ads_kinit_password(228)
  kerberos_kinit_password pc$@DOMAIN.COM failed: Client not found in Kerberos database
Join to domain is not valid: Improperly formed account name
[root@pc ~]# net ads testjoin -P
Join is OK
[root@pc ~]# date
Wed Sep 26 04:23:50 EDT 2007
Comment 1 Guenther Deschner 2007-09-27 17:29:12 UTC
Is this really still the case in 3.0.26a? I'm pretty sure this got fixed. Can you please verify?

Thanks.
Comment 2 Rick King 2007-09-28 01:31:40 UTC
I saw it before in early 3.0.25 and I too thought it got fixed by a later version of 3.0.25 (though I'm not totally sure), however, after installing 3.0.26a it's definitely reappeared. I'm seeing it on multiple machines.
Comment 3 Guenther Deschner 2009-06-11 18:20:44 UTC
This got fixed for all branches, please reopen if still an issue.