[Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#1014453: Bug#1014453: samba: error 22 when attempting to mount a share from linux-5.18.8 or newer client

[Julian Sikorski]

Am 11.07.22 um 17:31 schrieb Michael Tokarev:
> 06.07.2022 14:12, Julian Sikorski wrote:
>> Package: samba
>> Version: 2:4.13.13+dfsg-1~deb11u3
>> Severity: important
>> Tags: patch
>> X-Debbugs-Cc: belegdol at gmail.com
>>
>> Dear Maintainer,
>>
>> After updating my client to kernel 5.18.8, I was no longer able to 
>> mount samba shares hosted by my debian install. I was getting mount 
>> error 22.
>> Upon discussing the problem on linux-cifs [1], it was discovered that 
>> the issue can be fixed by a patch available in samba versions 4.15 and 
>> later [2]. I can confirm that adding this patch to the debian 4.13 
>> package fixes the issue too. Please add this patch to the package.
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cifs/8ccad303-7489-d90a-2255-ca36b7253810@gmail.com/T/#t 
>>
>> [2] 
>> https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=147dd9d58a429695a3b6c6e45c8b0eaafc67908a 
>>
> 
> As far as I can see, this fix is included in samba 4.16 which is 
> currently in
> testing and in bullseye-backports.  Kernel 5.18 is not in bullseye.
> 
> I think you can use samba from bpo to fix this one. I don't have plans
> to make another 4.13 in bullseye for now.  And I don't really know what
> do do with this bugreport which can already be closed since it is fixed
> in testing...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> /mjt
Thanks for responding. As I am not familiar with Debian's update 
policies, please excuse if these are obvious questions.
Are there plans to get samba 4.16 into bullseye-updates? Or will the fix 
only be included in bookworm? While kernel 5.18 is not in bullseye yet, 
we are specifically talking about client-server situation, meaning that 
the client is not unlikely to be running to be a different OS than the 
server. For me it is armbian on the server and fedora on the client. The 
patch exposing the bug only got into 5.18 stable tree, not to the older 
ones, so the issue is likely limited in scope at the moment. It might 
become more prevalent as more clients upgrade the kernel.

Best regards,
Julian