Hi all.
I'm experiencing long connect delays due to password file locking
errors. For each connection samba logs the following errors:
do_pw_lock: failed to lock SMB passwd file.
mod_smbpwd_entry: unable to lock file
/usr/local/samba-1.9.18p10/private/smbpasswd
In the archives I found some other messages reporting the problem (on
May this year), but no solution. Did I miss something or the problem is
still unsolved? I am willing to further debug it, if pointed in the
right direction.
Environment:
samba samba-1.9.18p10, running from inetd, on SunOS 4.1.4
update encrypted = yes, encrypt passwords = no
Thank you
Fulvio
Fulvio, On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:06:43 +1100, Fulvio Corno wrote:>I'm experiencing long connect delays due to password file locking >errors. For each connection samba logs the following errors: > >do_pw_lock: failed to lock SMB passwd file. >mod_smbpwd_entry: unable to lock file > /usr/local/samba-1.9.18p10/private/smbpasswd > >Environment: >samba samba-1.9.18p10, running from inetd, on SunOS 4.1.4 >update encrypted = yes, encrypt passwords = noThis seems to be some long standing bug since "update encrypted" came up: Samba locks smbpasswd when it runs with "update encryted = yes" and does not find the user to be updated in smbpasswd. Make sure you have *all* users in smbpasswd and the problem will disappear. Perhaps someone has a bit of spare time to proove this and report to samba-bugs. I feel discouraged to do so because I reported several problems and never got something back but the machine generated reply to be patient ... Hasta la vista, Robert -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert.Dahlem@frankfurt.netsurf.de Radio Bornheim - 2:2461/332@fidonet +49-69-4930830 (ZyX, V34) 2:2461/326@fidonet +49-69-94414444 (ISDN X.75) ---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert, thank you for the very useful insight. Robert Dahlem wrote:> Samba locks smbpasswd when it runs with "update encryted = yes" and does not find > the user to be updated in smbpasswd. Make sure you have *all* users in smbpasswd > and the problem will disappear.Indeed, it seems fixed now.> Perhaps someone has a bit of spare time to proove this and report to samba-bugs. I > feel discouraged to do so because I reported several problems and never got > something back but the machine generated reply to be patient ...I found the (possible) source of the error, in smbpass.c line 620+ /* We have a write lock on the file. */ /* * Scan the file, a line at a time and check if the name matches. */ while (!feof(fp)) { ....omissis.... } if (!found_entry) return False; /* line 707 */ If no entry is found, the procedure returns without releasing the lock. I modified the last statement as: if (!found_entry) /* line 707 */ { fclose(fp); pw_file_unlock(lockfd); return False; } as it appears in other parts of the code. For now, it seems to have corrected the problem. thanks again, and happy sambing Fulvio
People, On Thu, 29 Oct 1998 09:03:56 +1100, Robert Dahlem wrote:>This seems to be some long standing bug since "update encrypted" came up: > [...]>Perhaps someone has a bit of spare time to proove this and report to samba-bugs. >I feel discouraged to do so because I reported several problems and never got >something back but the machine generated reply to be patient ...I Just want to tell people here that after complaining about the samba team being unresponsive to mails adressed to the the samba-bugs list I'm a bit ashamed: John from the samba team stated they are working with a dozen of volunteers on those mailings and they have already answered 8,000 of about 11,000 messages until yet. Gerald from the samba team stated that one-half of these peoble are primarily developers working on the "golden" code. Jeremy from the samba team stated that the bug mentioned in the subject field is already known and yet fixed in the code being released as 2.0. Sorry boys for being impatient and without respect. I read about 2,500,000 systems running samba and using code no single person payed a penny for. You do not deserve my above quoted statement. Hasta la vista, Robert -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert.Dahlem@frankfurt.netsurf.de Radio Bornheim - 2:2461/332@fidonet +49-69-4930830 (ZyX, V34) 2:2461/326@fidonet +49-69-94414444 (ISDN X.75) ---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony, On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 11:05:18 +1100, Anthony Ord wrote:>Another thing, the reply-to line should be changed to the mailing >list. As it stands, if someone has a problem and you reply to it, by >default only that person receives the answer. The mailing list as a >whole do not.I dont think so. I personally always use my mailers function "reply to all recipients" when answering a mailing-list message. So my answer makes it to the list and to the original sender. The original sender gets it as fast as possible even if (s)he receives it in the digest form. Its just a question of discipline ...>If need be, perhaps a new mailing list called "samba-answers" should be set up, >and the "Reply-To:" line set to that.This would be nothing but another FAQ list with the disadvantage of messages just disappering in its archives. The "SP3/Win98 case" is mentioned in the FAQ and every question coming up here just proves that those cool guys dont read it. Be sure: they dont even read the archives, they just post to the list. :-( Hasta la vista, Robert -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert.Dahlem@frankfurt.netsurf.de Radio Bornheim - 2:2461/332@fidonet +49-69-4930830 (ZyX, V34) 2:2461/326@fidonet +49-69-94414444 (ISDN X.75) ---------------------------------------------------------------