Version: 2:4.13.13+dfsg-1

23.05.2023 05:50, Steven Monai wrote:

Package: samba
Version: 2:4.17.8+dfsg-1
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected]

Dear Maintainer,

Using samba 4.17.8 with bind_dlz DNS backend. A new DC is joined to an existing 
domain with a single 4.17.8 DC.

When samba_dnsupdate runs on the newly joined DC, it causes the local named to 
abort with an assertion failure when adding the necessary DNS RRs.

This issue is potentially show-stopping for new Bookworm DCs, as it prevents 
the necessary DNS RRs (NS and SRV records) from being created.

It's been this way for a long time, it seems. There was a bug report in debian 
about this
(#927747), which I closed due to lack of more information.  Now with that 
samba-users
thread which I watched with interest, and this your bug report, I finally know 
the drill.

So yes, it affects bookworm, but it affects bullseye and even buster in the 
same way too.

There is a patch upstream for this issue, for both 4.18.latest and 4.17.latest 
(see: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14030 ).

Upstream says the patch is vetted (see: 
https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2023-May/245231.html ).

I hope this fix can make it into Bookworm!

At this point I don't plan to push new samba release to debian.
Next upstream 4.17 is planned - I guess now when the issue is rehashed by you,
next stable upstream release will include the fix.  I definitely plan to push
this to bookworm, hopefully the first point release of it.  If I were to push
it now, I'll have to add a new patch now and remove it when next 4.17 is out,
making double work for the release managers, - first to review the patch,
next to review patch move to upstream source, - the latter is always more
difficult than to review just the upstream differences.  I understand you
want to see it in debian before 12.1, but having in mind the amount of work
being done by the release managers now..  I can make it available in my
usual repository.

Thank you for being persistent, despite some of the samba members being not
as useful.. ;)

/mjt

Reply via email to