On Mon 04 Dec, Gary Stainburn wrote:

All this info is available if you do a 'man smbmount' and 'man swat'

Well...yes...and no. The manual is short on 'examples' and assumes you know the terminology as applicable in that particular area. And while it says what you can do - it doesn't say what you can't. I hadn't realised that swat could not be run from the command line. (why?) However, it now works. Many thanks. smbmount //server/share /mnt/mountpoint This did not work at first until I had created a folder called mountpoint (or fred or whatever). In fact - I wasn't sure what mountpoint meant - and thought it was referring to the remote system. Why do you need to create a folder? (...thinks, would it be better if the mount point was created automatically - possibly using the 'share' name in the mnt folder?) I've since looked on samba.org site....which said that due to new shortcomings with Qt library smbsh would not work any more. Should have read that first!

...

...

...

...

...

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 12/4/00, 10:46:17 AM, "Alan Davies" <staff.asd@birkenhead.wirral.sch.uk> wrote regarding [suse-linux-uk-schools] SAMBA setup:

...

Trying to get LINUX to 'mount' a PC share.

...

smbd appears to be running as I can use smbclient fine.

Smbd/nmbd are there to provide services to other computers connecting to yours, not for you to mount other computer's shares.

...

Reilly book says smbmount is deprecated - and not supported so I try smbsh - which in SUSE6.4 does not appear to be recognised.

I knew nothing of this, and still use smbmount. However, I have just looked at the man mage, and it says that you should now use the normal mount command passing an argument of -t smb to tell mount it's a SMB filesystem.

...

Does that mean that smbwrappers is not part of the kernel.

...

So I try typing smbmount - t smbfs //myserver/share (Reilly) and it quotes the smbmount syntax implying I got it wrong. What does a 'service' mean in this context?

Try 'smbmount //myserver/share /mnt/mountpoint' In this context 'service' = 'share'

...

What should I use? - or perhaps smbfs is not part of kernel?

If smbfs is not in the kernel you would (probably) get a different error message.

...

Cant do it the other way either. Using simple smb.conf from Reilly and putting Linux host in host file in the PC, it (the PC) will still not connect to the share.

...

Tried accessing swat - doesn't appear to the running. Tried to get it to run with swat 901/tcp & (as per Reilly) and it appears in ps list - but still can't connect.

Do you mean that you entered 'swat 901/tcp' at the command line?

You should have put that in the file /etc/services. Then you should put the following line /etc/inetd.conf

swat stream tcp nowait.400 root /usr/local/samba/bin/swat swat

The do a 'killall -HUP inetd' to put the changes live.

Once you have done this, do 'netscape http://myserver:901 &'

...

-- Alan Davies Head of Computing Birkenhead School

-- Alan Davies Head of Computing Birkenhead School

On Mon 04 Dec, Gary Stainburn wrote:

...

smbmount //server/share /mnt/mountpoint

Sorry. I wrongly assumed that you'd used the normal unix 'mount' command before and understood mountpoints.

I would like to say - publically - that I am very greatful for the help received. I realise that thinking down to my level requires considerable effort!

In keeping with this idiom, everything starts from a root (/) partition. Other partitions are connected (mounted) at specific points on this root partition. The boot partition (/dev/hda5 on my system) is mounted on /boot, thus once mounted, you access that partition by 'cd'ing into /boot.

Getting it to do this was my problem.

Mount -t smb and smbmount work similarly, but allow you to do the same with a remote Win9x share. It mounts the remote service as part of the local system's directory tree structure. For example, I have a directory on my local system called /mnt/smb. If I mount a remote SMB service, I put it there so I always know what I've done with it (although running mount without arguments would tell me that anyway).

Hope this makes things a little clearer for you.

So - creating a 'mountpoint' is effiectively creating a link to an already exisiting directory entry (it doesn't produce that direcotry entry for you?) I had mistakenly assumed that smbd and nmbd were running be default - as smbclient worked fine. I know understand that smbclient works independently and in the opposite direction to those daemons. (I know know about the extra options for ps command...) So I now hvae swat running, smbd, nmbd running and my LINUX box appears in the browse list of by NT domain. smbmount now works and I can connect to my NT share and/or home directory on NT system. Which all brings me to the final problem...connecting to the LINUX box from a remote station. (smbclient //localhost/test -U% works fine) My test samba config file is: [global] log level=1 max log size = 1000 socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY guest ok = no workgroup=BHEADS (my NT Domain name so that it appears in the right browse list) [homes] browseable = no map archive = yes [printers] path = /usr/tmp guest ok = yes printable = yes min print space = 2000 [test] browseable = yes read only = no guest ok = yes public = yes path = /test Entering the share from the brwose list on the NT server brings up a logon/password box (which surprises me - as I thought guest logon was ok). Using a LINUX username and password The subsequent error message on the NT box reads 'The account is not authorised to login from this station' Is this a problem with encrypted passwords? I add the line 'encrypt passwords= yes' to my smb/conf file (as per page 73, Reilly) and ....testparm doesn't like it. Later in Reilly it states 'encrypted passwords = yes' which it also doesn't like. What should it be? Perhaps I should ask NT to do password authenication.. The hosts.deny file only contains a http-rman: all line. -- Alan Davies Head of Computing Birkenhead School

...

...

...

...

...

>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 12/5/00, 10:16:55 AM, "Alan Davies" <staff.asd@birkenhead.wirral.sch.uk> wrote regarding Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] Re: SAMBA setup:

On Mon 04 Dec, Gary Stainburn wrote:

...

...

smbmount //server/share /mnt/mountpoint

Sorry. I wrongly assumed that you'd used the normal unix 'mount' command before and understood mountpoints.

I would like to say - publically - that I am very greatful for the help received. I realise that thinking down to my level requires considerable effort!

It's not a case of thinking 'down' to your level, it's merely a case of perspective.

...

In keeping with this idiom, everything starts from a root (/) partition. Other partitions are connected (mounted) at specific points on this root partition. The boot partition (/dev/hda5 on my system) is mounted on /boot, thus once mounted, you access that partition by 'cd'ing into /boot.

Getting it to do this was my problem.

...

Mount -t smb and smbmount work similarly, but allow you to do the same with a remote Win9x share. It mounts the remote service as part of the local system's directory tree structure. For example, I have a directory on my local system called /mnt/smb. If I mount a remote SMB service, I put it there so I always know what I've done with it (although running mount without arguments would tell me that anyway).

Hope this makes things a little clearer for you.

So - creating a 'mountpoint' is effiectively creating a link to an already exisiting directory entry (it doesn't produce that direcotry entry for you?)

I had mistakenly assumed that smbd and nmbd were running be default - as smbclient worked fine. I know understand that smbclient works independently and in

A mountpoint "IS" a directory, you are simply telling the mount command to use that directory as a placeholder for the filesystem it must mount there. the

opposite direction to those daemons. (I know know about the extra options for ps command...)

So I now hvae swat running, smbd, nmbd running and my LINUX box appears in the browse list of by NT domain. smbmount now works and I can connect to my NT share and/or home directory on NT system.

Which all brings me to the final problem...connecting to the LINUX box from a remote station. (smbclient //localhost/test -U% works fine)

My test samba config file is:

[global] log level=1 max log size = 1000 socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY guest ok = no workgroup=BHEADS (my NT Domain name so that it appears in the right browse list) [homes] browseable = no map archive = yes [printers] path = /usr/tmp guest ok = yes printable = yes min print space = 2000 [test] browseable = yes read only = no guest ok = yes public = yes path = /test

Entering the share from the brwose list on the NT server brings up a logon/password box (which surprises me - as I thought guest logon was ok).

Using a LINUX username and password The subsequent error message on the NT box reads 'The account is not authorised to login from this station'

Is this a problem with encrypted passwords? I add the line 'encrypt passwords= yes' to my smb/conf file (as per page 73, Reilly) and ....testparm doesn't like it.

Later in Reilly it states 'encrypted passwords = yes' which it also doesn't like.

For this example, I would leave out both entries. From the smb.conf that you included I cannot see why you would get a username/password dialog unless smbd didn't know what user to log you in as. Try adding 'guest account = nobody' in the [global] section and 'user = nobody' in the [test] section. Then see what happens.

What should it be? Perhaps I should ask NT to do password authenication..

The hosts.deny file only contains a http-rman: all line.

-- Alan Davies Head of Computing Birkenhead School

...

...

...

...

...

>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 12/5/00, 4:01:58 PM, "Alan Davies" <staff.asd@birkenhead.wirral.sch.uk> wrote regarding Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] Re: SAMBA setup:

On Tue 05 Dec, gary.stainburn@ringways.co.uk wrote:

...

It's not a case of thinking 'down' to your level, it's merely a case of perspective.

...

For this example, I would leave out both entries. From the smb.conf that you included I cannot see why you would get a username/password dialog unless smbd didn't know what user to log you in as.

Well - neither could I - although I wasn't as surprised as you!

...

Try adding 'guest account = nobody' in the [global] section and 'user = nobody' in the [test] section. Then see what happens.

'user=nobody'?

I assumed that this meant that there was nobody who was a guest - and therefore no one could log on as guest. This would appear to be incorrect?

No, user 'nobody' is a normal unix user account, but is there for a specific purpose. If you want to run a process with no special permissions - in deed fewer than normal permissions, you would run it as nobody. As superuser 'root', if you wish to provide a service, such as a web server, it would be dangerous to run it under your own user ID. If someone managed to find a security hole, they would have root access to your system. If you run that web server under account 'nobody' then if they break into the server, they can only do whatever they could if they logged in as user nobody. Usually, nobody, only has read access to certain areas, and write access to /tmp etc.

..however, user=nobody does appear to allow everyone to connect to that share, as well as to their home directory - assuming they use their LINUX username and password - and have encrypted entries in the smbpasswd file.

I notice that there is a command 'update encrypted' for use in global

of smb.conf which will update their encrypted password after they have connected once to a share (impossible if they require encrypted passwords to do

I could see how that would let people connect to your [test] service, as that was the idea. However, I'm not sure why it's let them access their [home] areas. This should be looked into further as it's not a satisfactory answer. section that in

the first place).

Is there a way to duplicate the entire passwd file into smbpasswd file and do the encryption for everyone in one go?

Sorry, can't help here, I've not played with the smbpasswd file.

..still I getting there. Many thinks again.

-- Alan Davies Head of Computing Birkenhead School