IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Use an alarm to break out of waiting for a signal.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13121
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Thu Nov 16 22:27:06 CET 2017 on sn-devel-144
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Tue Nov 14 03:55:37 CET 2017 on sn-devel-144
Test if the server blocks whilst waiting on a kernel lease held by
a non-smbd process.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13121
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Ralph Böhme <slow@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Sat Nov 11 20:12:26 CET 2017 on sn-devel-144
It implements the following test case:
1. client of smbd-1 opens the file and sets the oplock.
2. client of smbd-2 tries to open the file. open() fails(EAGAIN) and open is deferred.
3. client of smbd-1 sends oplock break request to the client.
4. client of smbd-1 closes the file.
5. client of smbd-1 opens the file and sets the oplock.
6. client of smbd-2 calls defer_open_done(), sees that the file lease was not changed
and does not reschedule open.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13058
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Ralph Böhme <slow@samba.org>
All the other subtests in samba3.raw.acls.create_file|dir pass with
nfs4acl_xattr, it's just the subtest that tries to set the owner which
fails with everything else then acl_xattr.
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Regression tests doing an SMB2_find followed by
a set delete on close and then close on a directory.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13118
Signed-off-by: Ralph Wuerthner <ralph.wuerthner@de.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Sun Nov 5 12:31:12 CET 2017 on sn-devel-144
The server name in the AS-REQ is unprotected, sadly.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12894
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Autobuild-User(master): Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Thu Nov 2 07:16:50 CET 2017 on sn-devel-144
Since smbc_setX calls now handle string allocation using malloc
themselves (since commit 2d41b1ab78) we
indeed no longer need to provide malloced strings (the extra malloc
already got removed earlier).
Guenther
Signed-off-by: Günther Deschner <gd@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Andreas Schneider <asn@cryptomilk.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Mon Oct 30 21:09:14 CET 2017 on sn-devel-144
For Windows, DRS is the only way to see the RMD_VERSION of a link, or to
tell what inactive links the DC. Add some debug to display this
information. By default, this debug is turned off.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Fri Oct 20 08:01:35 CEST 2017 on sn-devel-144
While testing link conflicts I noticed that links on Windows start from
a different RMD_VERSION compared to Samba. This adds a simple test to
highlight the problem.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13059
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Currently the code only handles the case where the received link
attribute is a new link (i.e. pdn == NULL). As well as this, we need to
handle the case where the conflicting link already exists, i.e. it's a
deleted link that has been re-added on another DC.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13055
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This is the first part of the fix for resolving a single-valued link
conflict.
When processing the replication data for a linked attribute, if we don't
find a match for the link target value, check if the link is a
single-valued attribute and it currently has an active link. If so, then
use the active link instead.
This change means we delete the existing active link (and backlink)
before adding the new link. This prevents the failure in the subsequent
dsdb_check_single_valued_link() check that was happening previously
(because the link would end up with 2 active values).
This is only a partial fix. It stops replication from failing completely
if we ever hit this situation (which means the test is no longer
hitting an assertion when replicating). However, ideally the existing
active link should be retained and just marked as deleted (with this
change, the existing link is overwritten completely).
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13055
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
As well as testing scenarios where both variants of the link are new, we
should also check the case where the received link already exists on the
DC as an inactive (i.e. previously deleted) link.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13055
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Currently we're only testing the case where the links have been modified
independently on 2 different DCs and both the links are active. We also
want to test the case where one link is active and the other is deleted.
Technically, this isn't really a conflict - the links involve different
target DNs, and the end result is still only one active link.
It's still probably worth having these tests to prove that fixing bug
13055 doesn't break anything.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13055
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
There should only ever be one active value for a single-valued link
attribute. When a conflict occurs the 'losing' value should still be
present, but should be marked as deleted.
This change is just making the test criteria stricter to make sure that
we fix the bug correctly.
Note that the only way to query the deleted link attributes present
is to send a DRS request.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13055
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Refactor the process model code to allow the addition of a prefork
process model.
- Add a process context to contain process model specific state
- Add a service details structure to allow service to indicate which
process model options they can support.
In the new code the services advertise the features they support to the
process model. The process model context is plumbed through to allow the
process model to keep track of the supported options, and any state
the process model may require.
Signed-off-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Bug 12977 highlighted that Samba only checks exop GetNcChanges requests
once, when they're first received. This makes sense because valid exop
requests should only ever involve a single request. For regular
(non-exop) GetNcChanges requests, the server stores a cache of the
object GUIDs to return.
What we don't want to happen is for a malicious/compromised RODC to use
this cache to circumvent privilege checks, and receive secrets that it's
normally not permitted to access (e.g. the administrator's password).
The specific scenario we're concerned about is:
- The RODC sends a regular GetNcChanges request for all objects (without
secrets). (This causes the server to build its GUID array cache).
- The RODC then sends a follow-on request for the next chunk, but sets
the REPL_SECRET exop this time.
The only thing inadvertently preventing Samba from leaking secrets in
this case is updating msDS-RevealedUsers for auditing. It's possible
that a future code change may alter the codepath and open up a
security-hole without realizing. This patch adds a test case so if that
ever did happen, the selftests would detect the problem.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12977
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13076
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Ralph Böhme <slow@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Fri Oct 13 21:44:02 CEST 2017 on sn-devel-144
The osx_adouble_w_xattr datablob is used to test conversion from sidecar
._ file metdata to Samba compatible ._ file.
The previous data blob didn't contain xattr data, the new one does.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13076
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Extend the rpc.spoolss.printer.addprinter.publish_toggle test to
check the format of the returned GUID string in GetPrinter info
level 7 structure.
Bug: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12993
Signed-off-by: Samuel Cabrero <scabrero@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
Autobuild-User(master): Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Wed Oct 11 06:39:00 CEST 2017 on sn-devel-144
Added a test to simulate a user accidentally being deleted and 2
different admins trying to resolve the problem simultaneously - one by
re-animating the object and one by just creating a new object with
the same name.
Currently this test fails on Samba because it chooses the higher
version
number as the winner instead of the latest change.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13039
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
While testing link conflicts I noticed that Windows resolves conflicts
differently to Samba. Samba considers the version number first when
resolving the conflict, whereas Windows always takes the latest change.
The existing object conflict test cases didn't detect this problem
because they were both modifying the object the same number of times (so
they had the same version number).
I've added new tests that highlight the problem. They are basically the
same as the existing rename tests, except that only one DC does the
rename. Samba will always pick the renamed object as the winner, whereas
Windows picks the most recent change.
I've marked this test as a known fail for now.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13039
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Normally the replica_sync tests do the cleanup at the end of the test
case, rather than in the tearDown(). However, if the tests don't run to
completion (because they fail), then the objects may not get cleaned up
properly, which causes the tests to fail on the 2nd test-env.
The problem is the object deletion only occurs on DC2 and it relies on
replication to propagate the deletion to DC1. Presumably this
propagation could be missed because the tests are repeatedly turning off
inbound replication on both DCs.
This patch changes the tearDown() so it tries to delete the objects off
both DCs, which appears to fix the problem.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
This allows debugging of why the LDB failed to start up.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Guenther
Signed-off-by: Guenther Deschner <gd@samba.org>
Pair-Programmed-With: Jose A. Rivera <jarrpa@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Ralph Böhme <slow@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Tue Sep 19 09:36:40 CEST 2017 on sn-devel-144
Currently we have tests that check we can resolve object conflicts, but
these don't test anything related to conflicting linked attributes.
This patch adds some basic tests that checks that Samba can resolve
conflicting linked attributes.
This highlights some problems with Samba, as the following tests
currently fail:
- test_conflict_single_valued_link: Samba currently can't resolve a
conflicting targets for a single-valued linked attribute - the
replication exits with an error.
- test_link_deletion_conflict: If 2 DCs add the same linked attribute,
currently when they resolve this conflict the RMD_VERSION for the
linked attribute incorrectly gets incremented. This means the version
numbers get out of step and subsequent changes to the linked attribute
can be dropped/ignored.
- test_full_sync_link_conflict: fails for the same reason as above.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Autobuild-User(master): Garming Sam <garming@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Mon Sep 18 09:56:41 CEST 2017 on sn-devel-144
While running the selftests, I noticed a case where DC replication
unexpectedly sends a linked attribute for a deleted object (created in
the drs.ridalloc_exop tests). The problem is due to the
msDS-NC-Replica-Locations attribute, which is a (known) one-way link.
Because it is a one-way link, when the test demotes the DC and deletes
the link target, there is no backlink to delete the link from the source
object.
After much debate and head-scratching, we decided that there wasn't an
ideal way to resolve this problem. Any automated intervention could
potentially do the wrong thing, especially if the link spans partitions.
Running dbcheck will find this problem and is able to fix it (providing
the deleted object is still a tombstone). So the recommendation is to
run dbcheck on your DCs every 6 months (or more frequently if using a
lower tombstone lifetime setting).
However, it does highlight a problem with the current GET_TGT
implementation. If the tombstone object had been expunged and you
upgraded to 4.8, then you would be stuck - replication would fail
because the target object can't be resolved, even with GET_TGT, and
dbcheck would not be able to fix the hanging link. The solution is to
not fail the replication for an unknown target if GET_TGT has already
been set (i.e. the dsdb_repl_flags contains
DSDB_REPL_FLAG_TARGETS_UPTODATE).
It's debatable whether we should add a hanging link in this case or
ignore/drop the link. Some cases to consider:
- If you're talking to a DC that still sends all the links last, you
could still get object deletion between processing the source object's
links and sending the target (GET_TGT just restarts the replication
cycle from scratch). Adding a hanging link in this case would be
incorrect and would add spurious information to the DB.
- Suppose there's a bug in Samba that incorrectly results in an object
disappearing. If other DCs then remove any links that pointed to that
object, it makes recovering from the problem harder. However, simply
ignoring the link shouldn't result in data loss, i.e. replication won't
remove the existing link information from other DCs. Data loss in this
case would only occur if a new DC were brought online, or if it were a
new link that was affected.
Based on this, I think ignoring the link does the least harm.
This problem also highlights that we should really be using the same
logic in both the unknown target and the deleted target cases.
Combining the logic and moving it into a common
replmd_allow_missing_target() function fixes the problem. (This also has
the side-effect of fixing another logic flaw - in the deleted object
case we would unnecessarily retry with GET_TGT if the target object was
in another partition. This is pointless work, because GET_TGT won't
resolve the target).
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12972
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Add a test where a source object links to multiple different targets.
First we do the replication without GET_TGT and check that the server
can handle sending a chunk containing only links (in the middle of the
replication). Then we repeat the replication forcing GET_TGT to be used.
To avoid having to create 1500 objects/links, I've lowered the 'max
link sync' setting on the vampire_dc testenv to 250.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Samba would drop linked attributes that span partitions if it didn't
know about the target object. This patch adds a test that exposes the
problem.
I've re-used the code from the previous re-animation test to do this.
I've also added a very basic DcConnection helper class that basically
stores the connection state information the drs_base.py uses for
replication. This allows us to switch the DC we want to replicate from
easily. This approach could potentially be retro-fitted to some of the
existing test cases, as it allows us to test both the DRS client code
and server code at the same time.
Note this test case relates to the code change for commit
fae5df891c.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12972
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reading between the lines, this scenario seems to be the main reason
that Microsoft added the GET_TGT flag. MS AD can handle getting links
for unknown targets OK, but if it receives links for a deleted/recycled
target then it would tend to drop the received links. Samba client also
used to drop the links if talking to a Microsoft DC (or a Samba server
with GET_TGT support).
The specific scenario is the client side already knows about a deleted
object. That object is then re-animated and used as the target for a
linked attribute. *Then* the target object gets updated again so it gets
sent in a later replication chunk to the linked attribute, i.e. the
client receives the link before it learns that the target object has
been re-animated.
In this test we're interested in particular at how the client behaves
when it receives a linked attribute for a deleted object. (It *should*
retry with GET_TGT to make sure the target is up-to-date. However, it
was just dropping the linked attribute).
To exercise the client-side, we disable replication, setup the
links/objects on one DC the way we want them, then force a replication
to the second DC. We then check that when we query each DC, they both
tell us about the links/objects we're expecting (i.e. no links got
lost).
Note that this wasn't a problem with older versions of Samba-to-Samba
because sending the links last guaranteed that the target objects were
always up-to-date.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Add tests that delete the source and target objects for linked
attributes in the middle of a replication cycle.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
We already check that when we use GET_ANC that we still only receive a
single object when EXOP_REPL_OBJ is used. This extends the test to also
check that only a single object is returned when GET_TGT is used.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
The code has to handle needing GET_ANC and GET_TGT in combination, i.e.
where we fetch the target object for the linked attribute and the target
object's parent is unknown as well. This patch adds a test case to
exercise this code path.
The second part of this test exercises GET_ANC/GET_TGT for an
incremental replication, where the objects are getting filtered by an
uptodateness-vector/HWM.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
We have identified a case where the Samba server can send linked
attributes but not the target object. In this case, the Samba DRS client
would hit the "Failed to re-resolve GUID" case in replmd and silently
discard the linked attribute.
However, Samba will resend the linked attribute in the next cycle
(because its USN is still higher than the committed HWM), so it should
recover OK. On older releases, this may have caused problems if the
first error resulting in a hanging link (which might mean the second
time it's processed it still fails to be added).
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
test_repl_get_tgt:
- Adds 2 sets of objects
- Links one set to the other
- Changes the order so the target object comes last in the
replication (which means the client has to use GET_TGT)
- Checks that when GET_TGT is used that we have received all target
objects we need to resolve the linked attibutes
- Checks that we expect to receive the linked attributes *before*
the last chunk is sent (by default, Samba sends all the links at
the end, so this fails)
- Checks that we eventually receive all expected objects, and all
links we receive match what is expected
test_repl_get_tgt_chain:
This adds the linked attributes in a more complicated chain. We add
300 objects, but the links for 100 objects will point to a linked
chain of 200 objects.
This was mainly to determine whether or not Windows follows the
target object (i.e. whether it sends all the links for the target
object as well). It turns out Windows maintains its own linked
attribute DB, so it sends the links based on USN.
Note that the 2 testenvs fail for different reasons. promoted_dc fails
because it is sending all the linked attributes last. vampire_dc fails
because it doesn't support GET_TGT yet, so it sends the link before the
peer knows about the target object.
Note that to test against vampire_dc (rather than the ad_dc_ntvfs DC),
we need to send the GetNCChanges requests to DC2 instead of DC1.
I've left the DC numbering scheme as is, but I've addeed a test_ldb_dc
handle to drs_base.py - it defaults to DC1, but tests can override it
easily and still have everything work.
While running the new tests through autobuild, I noticed an intermittent
LDAP_ENTRY_ALREADY_EXISTS failure in the test setup(). This appears to
be due to a timing issue in the background replication between the
multiple testenvs. Adding some randomness so that the test base OU is
unique seems to avoid the problem.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
The existing code never passed the more_flags parameter into the
actual getNCChanges request, i.e. _getnc_req10(). This meant the
existing GET_TGT tests effectively did nothing.
Passing the flag through properly means we have to now change the tests
as the DNs returned by Windows now include any target objects in the
linked attributes. These tests now fail against Samba (because it
doesn't support GET_TGT yet).
Also added comments to the tests to help explain what they are actually
doing.
Note that Samba and Windows can return the objects in different orders,
due to significant differences in their underlying DB implementations
(Windows stores links in a separate DB, so sends links ordered strictly
by USN, whereas Samba sends links based on the USN of the source
object). To make the test a fair comparison between Windows and Samba,
we need to use dn_ordered=False.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
The code makes sure we are backwards compatible. It will first check if
we still have files in the private directory, if yes it will use those.
If the the file is not in the private directory it will try the binddns
dir.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlet <abartlet@samba.org>
An intermittent problem I noticed with tests in the past is that the
setup can fail to create the base OU because it already exists.
I believe this is because the previous testenv DC has replicated out the
test object, but not its deletion at the point that the next testenv DC
starts running the test.
This only seemed to happen very occassionally (I haven't seen it
happen with getnc_unpriv yet, but I also haven't run it through the
autobuild yet).
Using same randomness in the test OU should help avoid this sort of
problem, and it matches what some other replication tests do.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Add some test cases to check for requests for invalid/non-existent DNs.
This exercises the first return case added in commit:
s4-drsuapi: Refuse to replicate an NC is that not actually an NC
I've also updated the error code returned here to match Windows.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
In general Windows seems to return BAD_DN rather than ACCESS_DENIED for
an unprivileged user. In the the long-term, it's unrealistic to think
that Samba and Windows will agree exactly on every error code returned.
So for the tests to be maintainable and pass against Windows and Samba,
they need to handle differences in expected errors. To get around this
problem, I've changed the expected_error to be a set, so that multiple
error codes (one for Microsoft, one for Samba) can be specified for each
test case. This approach also highlights the cases where Microsoft and
Samba currently differ.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
In theory, if we send the exact same rejected request again, we should
get the same response back from the DC. However, we don't - the request
is accepted if we send it a second time.
This patch updates the repl_rodc test to demonstrate the problem (which
now causes the test to fail).
Note that although the bad GetNCChanges request is not rejected outright,
the response that gets sent back is empty - it has no objects in it, so
it's not an actual security hole. It is annoying problem for writing
self-tests though.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
An important change in this patch is changing the ACE type from
A (Allow)
to
AO (Object Allow)
as that will then respect the supplied GUID, which we also make use
the constant from the security.idl.
This reworks the tests to check replication with users with the
following rights:
- only GET_CHANGES
- only GET_ALL_CHANGES
- both GET_CHANGES and GET_ALL_CHANGES
- no rights
We basically want to test various different GetNCChanges requests
against each type of user rights, and the only difference is the
error/success value we get back. I've structured the tests this way, so
that we have 4 test_repl_xyz_userpriv() functions (to cover each of the
above user rights cases), and each test sends the same series of
GetNCChanges requests of varying validity.
Currently all these tests fail against Samba because Samba sends
different error codes to Windows.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
This prevents replication of an OU, you must replicate a whole NC per Windows 2012R2
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
