Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Mar 2011 02:00 UTC
Mac OS X When you run smbd -V on your Snow Leopard installation, you'll see it's running SAMBA version 3.0.28a-apple. While I'm not sure how much difference the "-apple" makes, version 3.0.28a is old. Very old. In other words, it's riddled with bugs. Apple hasn't updated SAMBA in 3 years, and for Lion, they're dumping it altogether for something homegrown. The reason? SAMBA is now GPLv3.
Thread beginning with comment 468077
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

"[q]Actually, Samba is not 100% windows compatible. You need CIFS to be really 100% compatible, this explains problems you had with Samba.

http://blogs.sun.com/amw/entry/cifs_in_solaris

"There is a common misconception that Windows interoperability is just a case of implementing file transfer using the CIFS protocol. Unfortunately, that doesn't get you very far. Windows interoperability also requires... "

Maybe that is one the reasons that Apple dropped Samba?


3 year old documentation. Ok applies the crappy version of samba, OS X was running. Also does not apply to all versions of samba even back then. Samba-tng since that bugger could run on windows.

Samba 4 "ntvfs handler" that yes is appearing in Samba 3.5+ line. This is a virtual NTFS with multi backends long term even possible to be back-ending to a real NTFS.

Issues talking about in 2007 are part of the reasons for Samba 4. Problem is that article explains why OS X has todo something now. They cannot stay sitting on the last GPLv2 version any more. Because soon that will look second rate next to current version.
"
Ok, so you say that newer Samba versions are fully Windows compatible? Do you have any links to this? I would like to learn more.

FYI, an argument like yours: "the article you linked to is three years old" does not count as a valid argument. I hope you have better backup than this? [/q]

I gave the valid argument ntvfs. The issue talked about by the document pulled up are the differences between the Posix secuirty/filesystem framework and Windows secuity/filesystem the very issue ntvfs was created in samba 4 to address. And one why ntvfs will appear in the samba 3 line under GPLv3.

Also the ntvfs issue is an issue OS X will have to solve as well since OS X secuirty frameworks and filesystems don't conform to Windows secuirty/filesystem either.

http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2005-April/035751.html Please note the date that NTVFS is being talked about 2 years prior to the solaris document. Solaris document was basically stating a issue that samba developers had run into and were working on solving.

Solaris solution is dependent on ZFS. NTVFS Due to being a virtual mapping supporting many backends can get the same advantages as what the solaris guys are talking about without locking to a single filesystem.

Basically that document pulled up form Solaris is ZFS marketing. Because at the time it was not 100 percent true. Just because you decided to solve the problem a different way to mainline does not mean mainline does not have a solution in the works. Issue is 3 years has passed. Solution in works is starting to move out to mainline in samba.

Yes the document is historic documents really don't cut it. Particularly when the history was not 100 percent correct at the time.

Edited 2011-03-27 22:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Ok, so you claim that Samba v4 is fully Windows compatible, just like CIFS. And you talk about NTVFS. And say that my link was about security issues.

In my link, someone from the Samba team wrote:
"Solaris could expand on this by giving us access to atomic NT-ACL create, NTFS stream support, the ability to push SID credentials into the system from winbindd and attach to a process etc. We already support case-insensitive filesystems of course."

Are these also security issues? Where can I read more about NTVFS?

Reply Parent Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Ok, so you claim that Samba v4 is fully Windows compatible, just like CIFS. And you talk about NTVFS. And say that my link was about security issues.

In my link, someone from the Samba team wrote:
"Solaris could expand on this by giving us access to atomic NT-ACL create, NTFS stream support, the ability to push SID credentials into the system from winbindd and attach to a process etc. We already support case-insensitive filesystems of course."

Sorry to say person you pulled up. Is not samba main team. Is in fact Solaris. http://blogs.sun.com/amw/entry/cifs_in_solaris Not Samba. Solaris does in fact have its own implementation alterations.

Don't try bluffing you way past me again please. You pulled up some random document that is basically by the wrong people.

Are these also security issues? Where can I read more about NTVFS?


NTVFS is where most of that stuff is implemented in Samba 4. Define of secuirty issues. NTVFS corrects the permissions processing issues that windows programs expect.

Prior still fully obeyed posix and Linux permissions that caught a few windows applications out normally causing them to crash when using a samba share. Their are a stack of options in samba 3 to alter responses to applications work. Of course being strictly posix would not been a issue if MS was not pushing NTFS expectations over the wire.

Support for DOS attributes (archive, hidden, read-only and system)
Case-insensitive file name operations.
There are three modes: case-sensitive, case-insensitive and mixed.
Support for ubiquitous cross-protocol file sharing through an option to ensure UTF8-only name encoding.
Atomic ACL-on-create semantics.
Enhanced ACL support for compatibility with Windows.

All this stuff directly relates to NTFS emulation.

www.samba.org/samba/ftp/slides/samba4_tridge.pdf This shows the major difference between samba 3 and samba 4. Major internal redesign ntvfs is one of the core parts of the redesign.

SID handling from Winbindd and ntvfs are both plugins.

All the solaris guy is talking about really is one of many ways todo it.

CIFS has been fully windows compatible with windows as long as Windows applications have not been expecting NTFS drives on the other end all the way through Samba 3. There are samba 3 flags to give applications what the expect.

None of these things data secuirty issues. More likely to be a issue of secuirty blocking applications from running.

Please be aware the first implementation of SMB by IBM only knows posix permissions and posix acls. Have complete no idea about NT-ACL at all. Yes directly setting posix-acls is supported over the wire using SMBv1. Will be reinstated in SMBv2 as well.

Reply Parent Score: 3