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.
This regression was introduced in Samba 4.7 by bug 12842 and in
master git commit eb2e77970e41c1cb62c041877565e939c78ff52d.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13552
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
dc_join() is creating an object, but it currently looks like it's
just a function call. Rename it to look more object-like.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
We test the all-good case with --pull-summary, which is the only one
we can be reasonably certain about.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Douglas Bagnall <dbagnall@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Thu Jun 28 09:23:10 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
rather than a local rewrite special to this file.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This is repeating work done in setup/teardown or doubling up in place (self._enable_all_repl includes self._enable_inbound_repl)
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
The default output ("classic") gives you a lot of very uninteresting
detail when everything is fine. --summary shuts up about things that
are fine but shouts a little bit when things are broken. It doesn't
provide any new information, just tries to present it in a more useful
format.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
When creating a new smb.conf from scratch during a join/clone/etc, the
'binddns dir' setting still uses the source smb.conf/default setting,
instead of the targetdir sub-directory.
I noticed this problem when trying to create a new testenv - the
provision() was trying to create /usr/local/samba/bind-dns directory,
which would fail if samba hadn't already been installed on the host
machine.
Now that this is fixed, we also need to fix tests that were explicitly
asserting that no unexpected directories were left behind after the test
completes.
This change also breaks the upgradeprovision script. The upgrade-
provision calls newprovision() to create a reference provision in a
temporary directory. However, previously this temporary provision was
creating the bind-dns directory in the actual upgrade directory as a
side-effect, e.g. it did a provision() with
targetdir=alpha13_upgrade_full/private/referenceprovisionLBKBh2 and this
ended up creating alpha13_upgrade_full/bind-dns as a side-effect.
The provision() now creates bind-dns in the specified targetdir, but
this means check_for_DNS() fails (it tries to create bind-dns sub-
directories, but the upgrade's bind-dns doesn't exist). I've avoided
this problem by making sure bind-dns exists as part of the
check_for_DNS() processing.
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Thu Jun 28 06:22:16 CEST 2018 on sn-devel-144
Because their existence is uncertain immediately after provision,
when these tests will run under some circumstances.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This may avoid some flapping tests by ensuring that each part of this
test runs in a unique namespace, no matter what may be left behind
or revived via replication.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
This may avoid some flapping tests by ensuring that each part of this
test runs in a unique namespace, no matter what may be left behind
or revived via replication.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Several tests hang all the objects they create off a unique OU.
Having a common OU makes cleanup easier, and having a unique OU (i.e.
adding some randomness) helps protect against one-off test failures
(Replication between testenvs is happening in the background.
Occasionally, when a test finishes on one testenv and moves onto the
next testenv, that testenv may have received the replicated test
objects from the first testenv, but has not received their deletion
yet).
Rather than copy-n-pasting this code yet again, split it out into a
helper function.
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Signed-off-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Gary Lockyer <gary@catalyst.net.nz>
Convert second param passed to ldb.Dn to be unicode so py2 & py3 code
will work
Signed-off-by: Noel Power <noel.power@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexander Bokovoy <ab@samba.org>
Convert second param to dsdb_Dn to be unicode so py2 & py3 code
will work
Signed-off-by: Noel Power <noel.power@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexander Bokovoy <ab@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Noel Power <noel.power@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
In addition to converting the except line another line is also added
for each except to extract the tuple contents.
Signed-off-by: Noel Power <noel.power@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
There are two cases we are interested in:
1) RODC receives two identical DNs which conflict
2) RODC receives a rename to a DN which already exists
Currently these issues are ignored, but the UDV and HWM are being
updated, leading to objects/updates being skipped.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13269
Signed-off-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This eventually passes down the replicate single object exop.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13269
Signed-off-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This should avoid some failures due to stale objects.
Signed-off-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
We try to ensure the output has all the expected information in the
expected order.
Soon we're going to add a JSON output mode, and we are strengthening
the tests here to ensure we don't break anything.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This is a simple copy of the sowrepl test to the new file, making room
to expand the test and (soon) to test JSON output.
pep-8 intentionally ignored to show this is a copy.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
In schema_load_init, we find that the writing of indices is not locked
in any way. This leads to race conditions. To resolve this, we need to
have a new state (SCHEMA_COMPARE) which can report to the caller that we
need to open a transaction to write the indices.
Signed-off-by: Garming Sam <garming@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
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
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>
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>
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>
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
fae5df891c11f642cb.
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>
