From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 2 14:20:09 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED36106564A for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:20:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A232B8FC1D for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:20:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oA2EK8Ze047647 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:20:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id oA2EK8V6047646; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:20:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:20:08 GMT Resent-Message-Id: <201011021420.oA2EK8V6047646@freefall.freebsd.org> Resent-From: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org (GNATS Filer) Resent-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Resent-Reply-To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, Bartosz Stec Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221CE106566B for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:11:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nobody@FreeBSD.org) Received: from www.freebsd.org (www.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::21]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC7B8FC1D for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:11:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from www.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA2EBCaG020471 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:11:12 GMT (envelope-from nobody@www.freebsd.org) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by www.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id oA2EBC6m020470; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:11:12 GMT (envelope-from nobody) Message-Id: <201011021411.oA2EBC6m020470@www.freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 14:11:12 GMT From: Bartosz Stec To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org X-Send-Pr-Version: www-3.1 Cc: Subject: ports/151887: net/samba35: patch-source3__smbd__negprot.c braking smbd and possibly not needed X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:20:09 -0000 >Number: 151887 >Category: ports >Synopsis: net/samba35: patch-source3__smbd__negprot.c braking smbd and possibly not needed >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Responsible: freebsd-ports-bugs >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: sw-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Tue Nov 02 14:20:08 UTC 2010 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: Bartosz Stec >Release: 8.1-STABLE >Organization: IT4Pro >Environment: FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE #14: Mon Nov 1 12:38:54 CET 2010 i386 >Description: After upgrading net/samba33 port, which was obsolete and removed, to net/samba35, I found that multifuntional office devices (like canon IR2270, IR2020i, IR1020i) cannot connect to smb shares anymore, while Windows PC's have no such problems. T I was also able to connect from Windows using login/password combination used by office machines. Hovewer none of them could connect itself, and smbd logs says: [2010/11/02 13:30:49.862220, 0] smbd/sesssetup.c:1703(reply_sesssetup_and_X) reply_sesssetup_and_X: Attempted encrypted session setup without negprot denied! Playing with smb.conf options and google doesn't help, it seems that only some Mac OS X's have similiar problems with latest samba releases. From IR2270 Panel I was able to browse network neighbourhood and FreeBSD based Samba server was visible and accesible. Any try to write scanned file to share ends with error. >How-To-Repeat: #portinstall net/samba35 then connect from some non-windows device, office equipment talking to SMB preferably. >Fix: While investigating possible causes, I found that removing patch 'patch-source3__smbd__negprot.c', rebuildig and reinstalling port fix this issue. None side effects of patch removal has been seen for now. So I guess that patch brakes protocol negotiations in some cases, and it's possible that it isn't needed at all. >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted: