http://wiki.winehq.org/NamedPipes - documenting the samba / wine NamedPipes integration

[Kai Blin]

On Sunday 15 February 2009 19:47:13 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> i've been updating this page with relevant information that is part
> requirements specification, part documentation.  of particular
> relevance is the lack of support (in both tng and samba 3) for
> transferring SetNamedPipeHandleState semantics, although the "stub"
> functionality inside tng (smbd/pipe-proxy.c) at least records the NP
> message-mode flags, and then _completely_ ignores them ha ha :)
>
> exactly how this is to be implemented is unclear, and to be absolutely
> honest, by far the simplest-sounding approach may be to actually
> compile samba up as a win32 app!

That'd force you to run Wine as root (or using 
POSIX capabilities) to be able to bind to < 1024 ports. Also, if the box is 
also running Samba, we're at the old clash of who owns ports 137-139 and 445.

> given that samba tng has _already_ successfully been ported to win32,
> it has a head start here.  and in that regard, ReactOS has it made,
> done and dusted!

Yes, but ReactOS doesn't run any other smbd, while I'd argue that's relatively 
common on Unix machines these days.

> the alternative is... gaahd, i dunno... messy, to say the least, and
> *shudder* an mmap'd tdb is sounding _really_ attractive.

I'm not sure why you'd want to make assumptions about the database backend the 
samba server is using. Assuming sometime this year we actually manage to roll 
out franky as a release, a bunch of databases will end up being LDB, not TDB.

> tell me if this sounds reasonable.  basically, a mini-wineserver
> protocol - a mini-SMB protocol - is required.  commands to "send",
> "receive", "setnamedpipestate", "waitnamedpipestate" and "close".  all
> required.
>
[...]
> does this sound like a reasonable proposition - a mini SMB/wineserver
> protocol - for use for inter-communication between wine and samba in
> order to exchange named pipe traffic?

Is there any reason we can't use plain old RPC for talking to Samba? We need 
to authenticate somehow, of course. There would be long term advantages of 
setting up a more generic pipeline to talk to Samba, though. I'm thinking of 
browsing support, netapi support, and a couple of other things.

Cheers,
Kai

-- 
Kai Blin
WorldForge developer  http://www.worldforge.org/
Wine developer        http://wiki.winehq.org/KaiBlin
Samba team member     http://www.samba.org/samba/team/
--
Will code for cotton.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20090216/4bd31f12/attachment-0001.pgp