The Samba-Bugzilla – Bug 7837
Windows 7 Pro unable to join Samba 3.3.4 domain
Last modified: 2016-02-15 10:12:28 UTC
I'm running a Linux server with Samba 3.3.7. It is configured as a domain controller. I have a Windows 7 Pro laptop which I'm having trouble adding to the Samba domain. I've made all the required Windows registry changes. Below is my smb.conf file.
Below is output from the Windows 7 NetSetup.LOG when I attempt to join the domain.
12/02/2010 09:01:54:698 NetpDoDomainJoin
12/02/2010 09:01:54:698 NetpMachineValidToJoin: 'LANPC1'
12/02/2010 09:01:54:698 OS Version: 6.1
12/02/2010 09:01:54:698 Build number: 7600 (7600.win7_gdr.100618-1621)
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 SKU: Windows 7 Professional
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 NetpDomainJoinLicensingCheck: ulLicenseValue=1, Status: 0x0
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 NetpGetLsaPrimaryDomain: status: 0x0
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 NetpMachineValidToJoin: status: 0x0
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 NetpJoinDomain
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 Machine: LANPC1
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 Domain: LANSYS
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 MachineAccountOU: (NULL)
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 Account: LANSYS\kevin
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 Options: 0x25
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 NetpLoadParameters: loading registry parameters...
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 NetpLoadParameters: DNSNameResolutionRequired not found, defaulting to '1' 0x2
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 NetpLoadParameters: status: DomainCompatibilityMode set to '1'
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 NetpLoadParameters: status: 0x0
12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 NetpValidateName: checking to see if 'LANSYS' is valid as type 3 name
12/02/2010 09:01:54:804 NetpCheckDomainNameIsValid [ Exists ] for 'LANSYS' returned 0x0
12/02/2010 09:01:54:804 NetpValidateName: name 'LANSYS' is valid for type 3
12/02/2010 09:01:54:804 NetpDsGetDcName: trying to find DC in domain 'LANSYS', flags: 0x40001020
12/02/2010 09:02:02:312 NetpDsGetDcName: failed to find a DC in the specified domain: 0x54b, last error is 0x0
12/02/2010 09:02:02:312 NetpJoinDomainOnDs: NetpDsGetDcName returned: 0x54b
12/02/2010 09:02:02:312 NetpJoinDomainOnDs: Function exits with status of: 0x54b
12/02/2010 09:02:02:312 NetpDoDomainJoin: status: 0x54b
When I do attempt to register into the domain I receive the error message that
my laptop could not "join the domain because the domain either doen't exist or
could not be contacted".
The strange thing is that I can see and access the shares on the Linux server
when I got into the Windows Explorer (file manager). I can even map drives from the Linux shares using \\domain-name\share-name.
#### Samba config file ####
workgroup = LANSYS
server string = Samba 3.3.7 PDC
netbios name = LNX01
security = user
log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log
max log size = 50
os level = 65
preferred master = yes
local master = yes
domain master = yes
domain logons = yes
encrypt passwords = yes
wins support = yes
dns proxy = No
hosts allow = 192.168.0., 127.
passdb backend = smbpasswd:/usr/local/samba/private/smbpasswd
smb passwd file = /usr/local/samba/private/smbpasswd
logon path = \\%L\Profiles\%U
logon home = \\%L\%U
logon drive = H:
logon script = dummy.bat
browseable = no
writeable = yes
create mask = 644
directory mask = 755
comment = Temp Directory
path = /tmp
writeable = yes
guest ok = yes
path = /home/samba/netlogon
guest ok = yes
writeable = no
path = /home/samba/profiles
read only = no
create mask = 0600
directory mask = 0700
*** Bug 7839 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 NetpLoadParameters: DNSNameResolutionRequired not
found, defaulting to '1' 0x2
Have you correctly set DNSNameResolutionRequired registry?
(In reply to comment #2)
> >12/02/2010 09:01:54:702 NetpLoadParameters: DNSNameResolutionRequired not
> found, defaulting to '1' 0x2
> Have you correctly set DNSNameResolutionRequired registry?
Yes I have but without success. This same PC, running Windows 7, is able to join the domain running at my job. Which I'm sure is running a Windows AD/DC. So' there's something about Samba my Windows 7 PC doesn't like or can't find.
Reference to bug 11685 might allow this bug to be treated as RESOLVED.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 11685 ***