diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/Samba3-Developers-Guide/unix-smb.xml')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/Samba3-Developers-Guide/unix-smb.xml | 318 |
1 files changed, 318 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/Samba3-Developers-Guide/unix-smb.xml b/docs/Samba3-Developers-Guide/unix-smb.xml new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..b700dfc9dc --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/Samba3-Developers-Guide/unix-smb.xml @@ -0,0 +1,318 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?> +<!DOCTYPE chapter PUBLIC "-//Samba-Team//DTD DocBook V4.2-Based Variant V1.0//EN" "http://www.samba.org/samba/DTD/samba-doc"> +<chapter id="unix-smb"> +<chapterinfo> + <author> + <firstname>Andrew</firstname><surname>Tridgell</surname> + </author> + <pubdate>April 1995</pubdate> +</chapterinfo> + +<title>NetBIOS in a Unix World</title> + +<sect1> +<title>Introduction</title> +<para> +This is a short document that describes some of the issues that +confront a SMB implementation on unix, and how Samba copes with +them. They may help people who are looking at unix<->PC +interoperability. +</para> + +<para> +It was written to help out a person who was writing a paper on unix to +PC connectivity. +</para> + +</sect1> + +<sect1> +<title>Usernames</title> +<para> +The SMB protocol has only a loose username concept. Early SMB +protocols (such as CORE and COREPLUS) have no username concept at +all. Even in later protocols clients often attempt operations +(particularly printer operations) without first validating a username +on the server. +</para> + +<para> +Unix security is based around username/password pairs. A unix box +should not allow clients to do any substantive operation without some +sort of validation. +</para> + +<para> +The problem mostly manifests itself when the unix server is in "share +level" security mode. This is the default mode as the alternative +"user level" security mode usually forces a client to connect to the +server as the same user for each connected share, which is +inconvenient in many sites. +</para> + +<para> +In "share level" security the client normally gives a username in the +"session setup" protocol, but does not supply an accompanying +password. The client then connects to resources using the "tree +connect" protocol, and supplies a password. The problem is that the +user on the PC types the username and the password in different +contexts, unaware that they need to go together to give access to the +server. The username is normally the one the user typed in when they +"logged onto" the PC (this assumes Windows for Workgroups). The +password is the one they chose when connecting to the disk or printer. +</para> + +<para> +The user often chooses a totally different username for their login as +for the drive connection. Often they also want to access different +drives as different usernames. The unix server needs some way of +divining the correct username to combine with each password. +</para> + +<para> +Samba tries to avoid this problem using several methods. These succeed +in the vast majority of cases. The methods include username maps, the +service%user syntax, the saving of session setup usernames for later +validation and the derivation of the username from the service name +(either directly or via the user= option). +</para> + +</sect1> + +<sect1> +<title>File Ownership</title> + +<para> +The commonly used SMB protocols have no way of saying "you can't do +that because you don't own the file". They have, in fact, no concept +of file ownership at all. +</para> + +<para> +This brings up all sorts of interesting problems. For example, when +you copy a file to a unix drive, and the file is world writeable but +owned by another user the file will transfer correctly but will +receive the wrong date. This is because the utime() call under unix +only succeeds for the owner of the file, or root, even if the file is +world writeable. For security reasons Samba does all file operations +as the validated user, not root, so the utime() fails. This can stuff +up shared development diectories as programs like "make" will not get +file time comparisons right. +</para> + +<para> +There are several possible solutions to this problem, including +username mapping, and forcing a specific username for particular +shares. +</para> + +</sect1> + +<sect1> +<title>Passwords</title> + +<para> +Many SMB clients uppercase passwords before sending them. I have no +idea why they do this. Interestingly WfWg uppercases the password only +if the server is running a protocol greater than COREPLUS, so +obviously it isn't just the data entry routines that are to blame. +</para> + +<para> +Unix passwords are case sensitive. So if users use mixed case +passwords they are in trouble. +</para> + +<para> +Samba can try to cope with this by either using the "password level" +option which causes Samba to try the offered password with up to the +specified number of case changes, or by using the "password server" +option which allows Samba to do its validation via another machine +(typically a WinNT server). +</para> + +<para> +Samba supports the password encryption method used by SMB +clients. Note that the use of password encryption in Microsoft +networking leads to password hashes that are "plain text equivalent". +This means that it is *VERY* important to ensure that the Samba +smbpasswd file containing these password hashes is only readable +by the root user. See the documentation ENCRYPTION.txt for more +details. +</para> + +</sect1> + +<sect1> +<title>Locking</title> +<para> +Since samba 2.2, samba supports other types of locking as well. This +section is outdated. +</para> + +<para> +The locking calls available under a DOS/Windows environment are much +richer than those available in unix. This means a unix server (like +Samba) choosing to use the standard fcntl() based unix locking calls +to implement SMB locking has to improvise a bit. +</para> + +<para> +One major problem is that dos locks can be in a 32 bit (unsigned) +range. Unix locking calls are 32 bits, but are signed, giving only a 31 +bit range. Unfortunately OLE2 clients use the top bit to select a +locking range used for OLE semaphores. +</para> + +<para> +To work around this problem Samba compresses the 32 bit range into 31 +bits by appropriate bit shifting. This seems to work but is not +ideal. In a future version a separate SMB lockd may be added to cope +with the problem. +</para> + +<para> +It also doesn't help that many unix lockd daemons are very buggy and +crash at the slightest provocation. They normally go mostly unused in +a unix environment because few unix programs use byte range +locking. The stress of huge numbers of lock requests from dos/windows +clients can kill the daemon on some systems. +</para> + +<para> +The second major problem is the "opportunistic locking" requested by +some clients. If a client requests opportunistic locking then it is +asking the server to notify it if anyone else tries to do something on +the same file, at which time the client will say if it is willing to +give up its lock. Unix has no simple way of implementing +opportunistic locking, and currently Samba has no support for it. +</para> + +</sect1> + +<sect1> +<title>Deny Modes</title> + +<para> +When a SMB client opens a file it asks for a particular "deny mode" to +be placed on the file. These modes (DENY_NONE, DENY_READ, DENY_WRITE, +DENY_ALL, DENY_FCB and DENY_DOS) specify what actions should be +allowed by anyone else who tries to use the file at the same time. If +DENY_READ is placed on the file, for example, then any attempt to open +the file for reading should fail. +</para> + +<para> +Unix has no equivalent notion. To implement this Samba uses either lock +files based on the files inode and placed in a separate lock +directory or a shared memory implementation. The lock file method +is clumsy and consumes processing and file resources, +the shared memory implementation is vastly prefered and is turned on +by default for those systems that support it. +</para> + +</sect1> + +<sect1> +<title>Trapdoor UIDs</title> +<para> +A SMB session can run with several uids on the one socket. This +happens when a user connects to two shares with different +usernames. To cope with this the unix server needs to switch uids +within the one process. On some unixes (such as SCO) this is not +possible. This means that on those unixes the client is restricted to +a single uid. +</para> + +<para> +Note that you can also get the "trapdoor uid" message for other +reasons. Please see the FAQ for details. +</para> + +</sect1> + +<sect1> +<title>Port numbers</title> +<para> +There is a convention that clients on sockets use high "unprivileged" +port numbers (>1000) and connect to servers on low "privilegedg" port +numbers. This is enforced in Unix as non-root users can't open a +socket for listening on port numbers less than 1000. +</para> + +<para> +Most PC based SMB clients (such as WfWg and WinNT) don't follow this +convention completely. The main culprit is the netbios nameserving on +udp port 137. Name query requests come from a source port of 137. This +is a problem when you combine it with the common firewalling technique +of not allowing incoming packets on low port numbers. This means that +these clients can't query a netbios nameserver on the other side of a +low port based firewall. +</para> + +<para> +The problem is more severe with netbios node status queries. I've +found that WfWg, Win95 and WinNT3.5 all respond to netbios node status +queries on port 137 no matter what the source port was in the +request. This works between machines that are both using port 137, but +it means it's not possible for a unix user to do a node status request +to any of these OSes unless they are running as root. The answer comes +back, but it goes to port 137 which the unix user can't listen +on. Interestingly WinNT3.1 got this right - it sends node status +responses back to the source port in the request. +</para> + +</sect1> + +<sect1> +<title>Protocol Complexity</title> +<para> +There are many "protocol levels" in the SMB protocol. It seems that +each time new functionality was added to a Microsoft operating system, +they added the equivalent functions in a new protocol level of the SMB +protocol to "externalise" the new capabilities. +</para> + +<para> +This means the protocol is very "rich", offering many ways of doing +each file operation. This means SMB servers need to be complex and +large. It also means it is very difficult to make them bug free. It is +not just Samba that suffers from this problem, other servers such as +WinNT don't support every variation of every call and it has almost +certainly been a headache for MS developers to support the myriad of +SMB calls that are available. +</para> + +<para> +There are about 65 "top level" operations in the SMB protocol (things +like SMBread and SMBwrite). Some of these include hundreds of +sub-functions (SMBtrans has at least 120 sub-functions, like +DosPrintQAdd and NetSessionEnum). All of them take several options +that can change the way they work. Many take dozens of possible +"information levels" that change the structures that need to be +returned. Samba supports all but 2 of the "top level" functions. It +supports only 8 (so far) of the SMBtrans sub-functions. Even NT +doesn't support them all. +</para> + +<para> +Samba currently supports up to the "NT LM 0.12" protocol, which is the +one preferred by Win95 and WinNT3.5. Luckily this protocol level has a +"capabilities" field which specifies which super-duper new-fangled +options the server suports. This helps to make the implementation of +this protocol level much easier. +</para> + +<para> +There is also a problem with the SMB specications. SMB is a X/Open +spec, but the X/Open book is far from ideal, and fails to cover many +important issues, leaving much to the imagination. Microsoft recently +renamed the SMB protocol CIFS (Common Internet File System) and have +published new specifications. These are far superior to the old +X/Open documents but there are still undocumented calls and features. +This specification is actively being worked on by a CIFS developers +mailing list hosted by Microsft. +</para> +</sect1> +</chapter> + |