TrueNAS 12.0-U7 Released

[Constantin]

Thanks Constantin,

Could you write this up as a "suggestion" in jira (Report-a-bug).
My guess is that the error message comes from the ZFS layer... and doesn't understand "missing devices".

Hi @morganL , I did that back in mid-Dec. Looks like 2 votes in favor so far...

 

[Arwen]

Well, it was 3 when I logged into Jira a minute ago. Now it's 4, (one from me).

 

[pader]

12.0-U7 is a really bad update, these happend on my NAS:

• NAS-113814 - Graphs are empty
• NAS-113751 - httpd.core after upgrade to 12.U7

After rollback to 12.0-U6.1, they workd fine.

 

[anodos]

Following is copy / paste from Samba mailing lists:

this is a heads-up that there will be Samba security updates for 4.13 ,
4.14 and 4.15 on Monday, January 31 2022. Please make sure that your
Samba servers will be updated soon after the release!Impacted components:
- File server (CVSS 4.2, Medium)
- AD DC (CVSS 8.8, High)
- VFS Modules (CVSS 9.9, Critical)

We do not build with AD-DC role, but other two CVEs will potentially impact those of you who have SMB deployed in your environment. We will roll this into the U8 update. If your server is deployed at $place-of-work, you may wish to go ahead and schedule a maintenance window for upgrades.

Do note that same applies to other vendors using Samba in their products, and so you should keep an eye open for updates from WD, Synology, etc (as well as being prepared to update any Samba DCs you have in your environment).

 

[raidflex]

So guessing U8 is not releasing today, I noticed it was scheduled to?

 

[anodos]

So guessing U8 is not releasing today, I noticed it was scheduled to?

Correct. Release date was bumped back for CVE fix.

 

[NASbox]

I see that U8 is having a few Samba related issues which is delaying the release. First, thanks to the devs for getting it right rather than just getting it out. Curious if this is a Samba issue or if TrueNAS is causing the issue.

 

[anodos]

I see that U8 is having a few Samba related issues which is delaying the release. First, thanks to the devs for getting it right rather than just getting it out. Curious if this is a Samba issue or if TrueNAS is causing the issue.

Release is delayed due to upstream CVE.

 

[anodos]

CVE info from upstream samba: https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2021-44142.html
Our corresponding jira ticket: https://jira.ixsystems.com/browse/NAS-114468

Keep an eye open for security release from other vendors using samba (if you synology, WD, etc devices deployed in your environment). If you have a (CentOS / FreeBSD / Debian / other linux distro) samba server deployed it would also be a good idea to start planning to upgrade soon.

 

[Forza]

CVE info from upstream samba: https://www.samba.org/samba/security/CVE-2021-44142.html
Our corresponding jira ticket: https://jira.ixsystems.com/browse/NAS-114468

Keep an eye open for security release from other vendors using samba (if you synology, WD, etc devices deployed in your environment). If you have a (CentOS / FreeBSD / Debian / other linux distro) samba server deployed it would also be a good idea to start planning to upgrade soon.

It's only systems that use the VFS module vfs_fruit, which is Apple shares, isn't it?

 

[anodos]

It's only systems that use the VFS module vfs_fruit, which is Apple shares, isn't it?

It's only if vfs_fruit is enabled with certain configuration options. Even when fruit is enabled in TrueNAS we do not enable these options by default. The only cases where they will be enabled are:
Core / Enterprise:
* AFP / SMB shares on same path
* SMB Shares created with "Multi-protocol AFP/SMB" preset

SCALE:
* SMB shares with "Legacy AFP Compatibility" (this only happens during migration from Core -- or if user decides to ignore warnings about touching this setting)

BOTH:
* SMB shares where user decided to manually override our defaults thorugh auxiliary parameters.

 

[Borja Marcos]

Understood.

I have deleted some old AFP shares I am no longer using (I stopped using AFP at all a long time ago) but some SMB shares show those parameters. What am I supposed to do in that case? Destroy the SMB shares and recreate them? Is there a simpler way?

 

[anodos]

Understood.

I have deleted some old AFP shares I am no longer using (I stopped using AFP at all a long time ago) but some SMB shares show those parameters. What am I supposed to do in that case? Destroy the SMB shares and recreate them? Is there a simpler way?

That alters how apple metadata is written and so is maybe not path forward. Not advising one way or another, but those are the facts. U8 will be released tomorrow.

 

[NugentS]

yay, graphs!!



Sorry

 

[GastonJ]

I'm now on U8, upgraded a few minutes back. Also the reporting now works in Chrome based browsers, graphs at last, or does for me using Edge.

Well done

 

[NASbox]

Anyone found any downsides to the upgrade?

 

[NugentS]

Not yet - but its early and hasn't got a .1 so there ought to be something.......

 

[rvassar]

It's still not handling disks correctly. My boot pool is a mirrored pair of 60Gb SATA SSD's... Devices ada0 and ada1. The UI shows ada0 as belonging to pool "freenas-boot", and ada1 listed as "N/A". From the cli, running "zpool status freenas-boot" shows ada1 as a member of a mirrored pool.

On edit: Create pool in the UI presents it as available for use in a new pool.

 

[cobrakiller58]

Is this bug report relevant to what your seeing? https://jira.ixsystems.com/browse/NAS-114237 appears to have been fixed for 13.....

 

[rvassar]

Is this bug report relevant to what your seeing? https://jira.ixsystems.com/browse/NAS-114237 appears to have been fixed for 13.....

That contains two of the elements I'm seeing.