Fedora directory users - Nov 2007 - admin-serv seg faults over and over

I just installed fds on another system,  and I noticed the admin serv would 
keep seg faulting 11 over and over.  A quick google-ing resulted in this 
thread.

http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-directory-users/2007-June/msg00083.html

I would just like to know if this is still the case that you cannot be running 
libnss-ldap depending services on any machines running fds.

Ryan

Ryan Braun wrote:
> I just installed fds on another system,  and I noticed the admin serv would
> keep seg faulting 11 over and over.  A quick google-ing resulted in this 
> thread.
>
>
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-directory-users/2007-June/msg00083.html
>
> I would just like to know if this is still the case that you cannot be
running
> libnss-ldap depending services on any machines running fds.
>   
Yes, this is still a problem.  I don''t know if anyone has a workaround 
for this.
> Ryan
>
> --
> Fedora-directory-users mailing list
> Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:12:25PM -0700, Rich Megginson
wrote:
> Yes, this is still a problem.  I don''t know if anyone has a
workaround for
> this.
The workaround is to go back to linking nss_ldap with static liblber and
libldap.  I''m building test updates which do this.

Ryan, if you can test if the packages (nss_ldap-257-4.fc6,
nss_ldap-257-4.fc7, and nss_ldap-257-4.fc8, which should all land in
their respective Fedora updates-testing repositories soonish), please
confirm whether or not they solve the problem.

Thanks!

Nalin

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 8:44 pm, Nalin Dahyabhai
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:12:25PM -0700, Rich Megginson wrote:
> > Yes, this is still a problem.  I don''t know if anyone has a
workaround
> > for this.
>
> The workaround is to go back to linking nss_ldap with static liblber and
> libldap.  I''m building test updates which do this.
>
> Ryan, if you can test if the packages (nss_ldap-257-4.fc6,
> nss_ldap-257-4.fc7, and nss_ldap-257-4.fc8, which should all land in
> their respective Fedora updates-testing repositories soonish), please
> confirm whether or not they solve the problem.
>
> Thanks!
I would love to,  only I''m currently working with etch :) 

Hopefully someone will try out the new packages though.  They would definitely 
be handy.

Thanks guys.

Ryan

Ryan Braun wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 November 2007 8:44 pm, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote:
>   
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:12:25PM -0700, Rich Megginson wrote:
>>     
>>> Yes, this is still a problem.  I don''t know if anyone has
a workaround
>>> for this.
>>>       
>> The workaround is to go back to linking nss_ldap with static liblber
and
>> libldap.  I''m building test updates which do this.
>>
>> Ryan, if you can test if the packages (nss_ldap-257-4.fc6,
>> nss_ldap-257-4.fc7, and nss_ldap-257-4.fc8, which should all land in
>> their respective Fedora updates-testing repositories soonish), please
>> confirm whether or not they solve the problem.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>     
>
> I would love to,  only I''m currently working with etch :) 
>
> Hopefully someone will try out the new packages though.  They would
definitely
> be handy.
>
> Thanks guys.
>
> Ryan
>
> --
> Fedora-directory-users mailing list
> Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>   
I''ve just tried nss_ldap-257-4.fc7 with the new FDS 1.1 beta on Fedora 
7, and it all seems to play nicely.

I can now use nss_ldap/pam_ldap for auth correctly, and the admin server 
no longer segfaults.

Is the plan to package the static linked nss_ldap separately, and add 
suitable requires/conflicts to the relevant RPMs?  Or is there a better 
way of resolving this longer term?

Danny

On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 11:56:14AM +0000, Danny Smith
wrote:
> Is the plan to package the static linked nss_ldap separately, and add 
> suitable requires/conflicts to the relevant RPMs?  Or is there a better way
> of resolving this longer term?
For now, it looks like that''s just how nss_ldap is going to be built.
Again, that is, since it used to be done this way before I switched back
to using shared libraries.

Longer-term, I think nss_ldap''s use of an in-process LDAP client
library
is a serious problem.  It''s not just the LDAP client library, really,
because we can run into similar problems with libraries which the LDAP
client library requires.  We just haven''t seen them yet.

Nalin