samba client varance RH3 versus RH 4

[Steven E. Protter]

RH4 system is 32 bit, fully current with up2date.

RH3 system is 32 bit, update 7 never been patched except for all smb rpms, which did not change the outcome.

Both systems are fully integrated into the samba domain.

mount -t smbfs -o username=doogletemp,password=mypassword //ilapp3/doogletmp /shmuel

/shmuel/ exists and is 777

Mount command returns this error on both systems.

params.c:Parameter() - Ignoring badly formed line in configuration file: A

But on the RH4 system the mount occurs.

On the RH3 system we get this when running df -kh

df: `/shmuel': Permission denied
[root@ildocman-web2 shmuel]# ls
ls: .: Stale NFS file handle


[root@ildocman-web2 shmuel]# uname -a
Linux ildocman-web2.il.nds.com 2.4.21-40.ELsmp #1 SMP Thu Feb 2 22:22:39 EST 2006 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
[root@ildocman-web2 shmuel]# cd /
[root@ildocman-web2 /]# umount /shmuel
[root@ildocman-web2 /]#
[root@ildocman-web2 /]# cat /etc/redhat-release
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES release 3 (Taroon Update 7)


Anyone else see the problem?
Would a full update to latest update 9 rpms of the entire system and kernel help?

Avenues of investigation?

Rewards are rich in SEP-ITRC-land.

SEP

[Ivan Ferreira]

>>> params.c:Parameter() - Ignoring badly formed line in configuration file: A

You should check the configuration file with testparm.

>>> df: `/shmuel': Permission denied

Try with umask=000 mount option.

If you use smbclient //ilapp3/doogletmp -U doogletemp

Can you browse the share?

[Steven E. Protter]

Shalom Ivan,

Yes from the perspective of the RH4 system, or even a visiting windows system, the share is browse able using the authentication information.

testparm produces no errors. The system returned the same error before it was a domain member as it did afterwards.

SEP

[Ivan Ferreira]

Just a quick note in relation to Windows 2003 Servers.

You may receieve this error message if your server is â Digitally signingâ communications.

To disable this, alter two policies, in the Default Domain Controller Security Settings. Under Local policies, Security Options.

Disable Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (always)
Disable Microsoft network server: Digitally sign communications (if client agrees)

Remember to run gpupdate.exe when finishes or youâ ll have to wait for Windows to do it at the scheduled interval.

After you did this umount that shared on linux and mount it again.

[TwoProc]

Greetings SEP,

I'm going to propose a scenario (sadly, I'm not giving you the answer, just something to check into).

Is it possible that the configuration file (/etc/samba/smb.conf) has an error in it, possibly of the syntactical sort. The RH4 system is probably continuing to process (read) the file after the error, and the other system (RH3)is possibly bailing out on you after the syntax error.

Or - possibly the same problem, but in reverse ...
maybe the error is on samba server you're connecting to, and your RH4 client is more tolerant (possibly even being in error to be so), and the RH3 client gets knocked down on it.

[TwoProc]

Oh, I didn't label the point of my posting.

Forgive me if it sounds all too obvious (it's not meant to be)-

Since the errors seems to be in the "params" area, from the line:

params.c:Parameter() - Ignoring badly formed line in configuration file: A

Then, this is your problem, the line out the fact that the directory already exists and is 777 - is probably just informational, or at the most a low-level warning.

The idea is that if you possibly get rid of the whatever configuration error is out there, you'd get a mount point on both the RH3 and RH4 systems. Can you review the samba config files?

[Steven E. Protter]

Shalom

I managed to use the same smb.conf file on both systems since the samba versions are fairly similar.

I'm not at work again until Sunday, but will try some of this stuff out then.

I did a full update on the vesion three box and will reboot on Sunday and see if the kernel makes any difference.

Thanks, keep the ideas coming.

SEP

[Heironimus]

Most of the time when I've seen errors with smbfs or cifs mounts there have been errors in /var/log/messages. The errors aren't always very descriptive (especially with smbfs), but they usually do give me something to feed to google.

[TwoProc]

Steven,

I see that you can run /usr/bin/testparm to have your smb.conf file reviewed for validity. Hopefully, the problem will turn up in there.

[Steven E. Protter]

Shalom,

I repeat,testparm revealed no errors.

The configuration file is the same as on a working RH4 update 6 machine, save the name of the server.

What people seem to be telling me here is that the samba implementation in red hat 3 simply does not work. I don't find that very hard to believe. Check my profile, you'll see problems with samba in the past.

SEP

[Steven E. Protter]

Shalom again friends,

Full red hat up2date followed by reboot on new kernel had no effect.

SEP

[Angus1]

Did you try Ivan's suggestion of testing connection to the share with smbclient command? you mention doing this under RH4, but not RH3. It could be quite telling ....

smbclient //ilapp3/doogletmp -U doogletemp

Its been a while for me and samba, I always used to run such commands in quotes, using backslashes as well (and you need to escape each backslash with a backslash!) as follows:

smbclient "\\\\ilapp3\\doogletmp" -U doogletemp

but that was back in 2.0 days :)

[Angus1]

And, whats with the NFS error you mention??

"ls: .: Stale NFS file handle"

Is this directory mentioned in your /etc/exports file, or some similar NFS configuration?

[Steven E. Protter]

Two good questions Angus.

smbclient test does authenticate and connect properly from the RH4 box.

Credentials also work from windows client.

Problem seems confined to RH3 client.

Filed a case with RH support. Their queries look a lot like your.

:-)

SEP