On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:15:08AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:01:45AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > Should I generate a more verbose debug log (what log level > > > settings?) and place it somewhere on the net? > > > > > > I wonder how I'm triggering that code path, it certainly isn't seen by > > > the typical RHEL4 installs. The lock directory is set to reside on a > > > GFS filesystem, could that make a difference (shouldn't as it is > > > supposed to be POSIX compliant local-fs-like filesystem)? > > > > Oh almost certainly that's the problem. Did you test my test program > > on a GFS filesystem ? Doesn't GFS use crypto credentials to prevent > > people hijacking root ? If that's the case I bet they break POSIX > > semantics w.r.t. this. > > > > Why are you putting the locking db on a GFS filesystem anyway. That's > > madness ! > > The reason is to have a poor-man's-clustered-samba by placing lock and > private dir on a common share and have the relocated smbd/nmbd pairs > access them. E.g. relocating within the cluster is effectively like > restarting smbd/nmbd on a node.
That's never going to work (at least with acceptable speed). Talk to Volker for details... > > (gdb) run testfile thimm > Starting program: /srv/physik.fu-berlin.de/data/samba-test/a.out testfile > thimm > > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > 0x0000003e18a6fb00 in strlen () from /lib64/tls/libc.so.6 > (gdb) bt > #0 0x0000003e18a6fb00 in strlen () from /lib64/tls/libc.so.6 > #1 0x0000003e18a428dc in vfprintf () from /lib64/tls/libc.so.6 > #2 0x0000003e18a3f299 in buffered_vfprintf () from /lib64/tls/libc.so.6 > #3 0x0000003e18a3f479 in vfprintf () from /lib64/tls/libc.so.6 > #4 0x0000003e18a47d96 in fprintf () from /lib64/tls/libc.so.6 > #5 0x0000000000400b2b in main (argc=3, argv=0x7fbffff8a8) at test.c:55 Very strange - that's this line : fprintf(stderr, "failed to extend file %s - error %s\n", argv[1], strerror(errno) ); I wonder if strerror is returning NULL ? > > As I said, I bet GFS isn't POSIX complient. Don't put locking > > tdb's on anything but local filesystems. > > Well, GFS claims to be POSIX and local-like in any way. Maybe it is > just a bug in GFS? Does POSIX ensure that you can open an fd under > some user and not lose access right to the fd when dropping > priviledges? Yes. That's why we wrote it this way. It's a bug in GFS. Open it with RedHat. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba