Results 1 to 1 of 1
Hi everyone, this'll be my first post in the forum...
I'm running ubuntu server 7.10 amd64 and trying to set up a samba server for a LAN.
In the example ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 12-14-2007 #1Just Joined!
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Posts
- 1
Help: Is samba 'force user' misbehaving?
Hi everyone, this'll be my first post in the forum...
I'm running ubuntu server 7.10 amd64 and trying to set up a samba server for a LAN.
In the example smb.conf I'm trying to create one share accessible to everyone with a valid account in the server (people inside an office)
here's my example smb.conf:
NB: This is not my real setup, it's just the testcase I'm bringing on and serves only to illustrate my problem...Code:[global] workgroup = blarghhhh netbios name = houston server string = got-a-problem dns proxy = no interfaces = 127.0.0.0/8 eth0 bind interfaces only = true log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m max log size = 1000 syslog = 0 panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d debug level = 2 security = user null passwords = yes encrypt passwords = true passdb backend = tdbsam invalid users = root passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u passwd chat = *Enter\snew\sUNIX\spassword:* %n\n *Retype\snew\sUNIX\spassword:* %n\n *passwd:*password\supdated\ssuccessfully* . socket options = TCP_NODELAY [public] path = /example browseable = yes writable = yes create mask = 777 directory mask = 777 force user = to force group = to
I want to have all users share files in /exampla across eachother so I added force user/group to aid in that regard.
*Just for testing* i crated /example, owned by root with permissions 777 (again, just for testing). The owner of that directory seems irrelevent for my problem.
I have users 'to' and 'ti' created in both the "system" and the samba db and also (-e)nabled in samba...
Here's what I think is wrong:
With the exact smb.conf shown, when I try to enter "public", I'm asked a user/pass. wether I to/pass or ti/pass, i can't see the contents of public.
If I comment out the force user and group declarations, both to/pass and ti/pass have correct access to the share...
This is what shows up in log.(machine) when the share fails:
And, well, in case it's usefull, here's what shows up when accessing the share works (no declaration of force user / group) :Code:[2007/12/14 15:55:55, 2] auth/auth.c:check_ntlm_password(309) check_ntlm_password: authentication for user [to] -> [to] -> [to] succeeded [2007/12/14 15:55:55, 0] auth/auth_util.c:create_builtin_administrators(792) create_builtin_administrators: Failed to create Administrators [2007/12/14 15:55:55, 2] auth/auth_util.c:create_local_nt_token(914) create_local_nt_token: Failed to create BUILTIN\Administrators group! [2007/12/14 15:55:55, 0] auth/auth_util.c:create_builtin_users(758) create_builtin_users: Failed to create Users [2007/12/14 15:55:55, 2] auth/auth_util.c:create_local_nt_token(941) create_local_nt_token: Failed to create BUILTIN\Users group! [2007/12/14 15:55:55, 1] auth/auth_util.c:create_token_from_username(1110) sid_to_uid for to (S-1-5-21-133238273-2997305703-2950841162-3000) failed
I don't have a clue of what's wrong in this testcase, but it's probably some childish mistake...Code:[2007/12/14 16:30:12, 2] auth/auth.c:check_ntlm_password(309) check_ntlm_password: authentication for user [to] -> [to] -> [to] succeeded [2007/12/14 16:30:12, 0] auth/auth_util.c:create_builtin_administrators(792) create_builtin_administrators: Failed to create Administrators [2007/12/14 16:30:12, 2] auth/auth_util.c:create_local_nt_token(914) create_local_nt_token: Failed to create BUILTIN\Administrators group! [2007/12/14 16:30:12, 0] auth/auth_util.c:create_builtin_users(758) create_builtin_users: Failed to create Users [2007/12/14 16:30:12, 2] auth/auth_util.c:create_local_nt_token(941) create_local_nt_token: Failed to create BUILTIN\Users group! [2007/12/14 16:30:12, 1] smbd/service.c:make_connection_snum(1033) withus-mobile1 (192.168.250.4) connect to service public initially as user to (uid=1000, gid=1000) (pid 8601)
BTW, `testparm` does not show any problems..
Can anyone please enlighten me?? I'm completely clueless right now
Thanks in advance
Cheers,
--qin


Reply With Quote
