On 20/02/2013 10:58, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 10:53 +0000, Alex Matthews wrote:
Hiya,
I am also having problems with this.
When samba starts I get tsig verify failures:
[2013/02/20 10:49:05, 0] ../source4/smbd/server.c:369(binary_smbd_main)
samba version 4.0.3 started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2012
[2013/02/20 10:49:06, 0] ../source4/smbd/server.c:475(binary_smbd_main)
samba: using 'standard' process model
[2013/02/20 10:49:07, 0]
../lib/util/util_runcmd.c:334(samba_runcmd_io_handler)
/usr/sbin/samba_dnsupdate: ; TSIG error with server: tsig verify failure
[2013/02/20 10:49:07, 0]
../lib/util/util_runcmd.c:334(samba_runcmd_io_handler)
/usr/sbin/samba_dnsupdate: ; TSIG error with server: tsig verify failure
[2013/02/20 10:49:07, 0]
../lib/util/util_runcmd.c:334(samba_runcmd_io_handler)
/usr/sbin/samba_dnsupdate: ; TSIG error with server: tsig verify failure
[2013/02/20 10:49:07, 0]
../lib/util/util_runcmd.c:334(samba_runcmd_io_handler)
/usr/sbin/samba_dnsupdate: ; TSIG error with server: tsig verify failure
[2013/02/20 10:49:07, 0]
../lib/util/util_runcmd.c:334(samba_runcmd_io_handler)
/usr/sbin/samba_dnsupdate: ; TSIG error with server: tsig verify failure
log level 3 = http://pastebin.com/ZJQR6hiJ
Running dnsupdate shows it fails on the same records as above and
dnsupdate --all-names fails on _ALL_ records.
Is this correct behaviour? (I can't see that being the case)
If not can someone suggest a way forward?
This is a known issue, that produces this cosmetic error. We have a
patch to fix it, but want to add tests to ensure it does not regress
again in the future.
Thanks,
Andrew Bartlett
Hiya,
Thanks for the response. So there are no known issues caused by this? It
is 100% cosmetic as you put it?
I hope this clears things up for other people too!
Thanks,
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
