Bug 7285 - NetBIOS Namespace Clash Handling
NetBIOS Namespace Clash Handling
Status: NEW
Product: Samba 3.6
Classification: Unclassified
Component: File services
unspecified
All Linux
: P3 enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Volker Lendecke
Samba QA Contact
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-03-23 16:11 UTC by John H Terpstra
Modified: 2015-05-21 08:14 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments
Proposed patch to add testparm warning (982 bytes, patch)
2010-03-24 09:00 UTC, Karolin Seeger
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description John H Terpstra 2010-03-23 16:11:05 UTC
Samba-3.4.2 and later permits startup of smbd and nmbd when the "workgroup" name is the same as the "netbios name".  Testparm no longer throws this situation as an error condition.

Can someone confirm if this is a reversion?  I recall that this was previously addressed and we agreed that in such situation the Samba daemons should not start and should report in the logs a clear error message.

To validate, create the following smb.conf file:
[global]
   workgroup = GEORGE
   netbios name = GEORGE


Then run testparm, and start nmbd and smbd - both start without error message to the log files at default log level.
Comment 1 Karolin Seeger 2010-03-24 09:00:14 UTC
Created attachment 5531 [details]
Proposed patch to add testparm warning
Comment 2 Karolin Seeger 2010-03-24 09:03:03 UTC
Did testparm ever throw a warning about this one before?
I tried Samba 3.0.34 and it did not in this version.

I am not sure whether the daemons should start or not.
Comments?
Comment 3 Karolin Seeger 2010-03-24 09:04:06 UTC
Raising product as this won't be fixed in 3.4.
Comment 4 Karolin Seeger 2010-03-24 09:11:55 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created an attachment (id=5531) [details]
> Proposed patch to add testparm warning
> 

Pushed to master branch (after talking to Volker).
Comment 5 John H Terpstra 2010-03-24 09:15:30 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Did testparm ever throw a warning about this one before?
> I tried Samba 3.0.34 and it did not in this version.
> 
> I am not sure whether the daemons should start or not.
> Comments?
> 

I would advise NOT allowing smbd and nmbd to start.  Under MS Windows, if the WORKGROUP and MACHINE name are the same, neither the workstation service and the server service will not start.  I believe we should do the same.
Comment 6 Volker Lendecke 2010-03-24 09:23:47 UTC
Why break existing setups?

Volker
Comment 7 John H Terpstra 2010-03-24 09:30:34 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> Why break existing setups?
> 
> Volker
> 

Why break systems that work -or- that do NOT work?

Never break anything that works!

- John T.
Comment 8 Stefan Metzmacher 2010-03-30 03:41:57 UTC
I think a level 0 warning should be enough.

I think we should add that directly into loadparm.c,
so that the deamon logs also get it at startup.