samba - Jan 2017 - frequent core dumps (invalid lock_order?)

Hi Rowland,

Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I will post the log 10 output a bit
later. Btw, what logs with log level 10 are you interested in?

Here’s my samba config with sensitive info replaced with placeholders:

[global]
access based share enum = yes
browseable              = yes
comment                 = <COMMENT>
create mask             = 0660
directory mask          = 2770
force group             = fts_data
path                    = <PATH>
guest ok                = no
public                  = no
writeable               = yes
valid users             = +GROUP1 +GROUP2
vfs objects             = full_audit acl_tdb
full_audit:prefix       = %u|%I|%m|%S
full_audit:success      = mkdir rename unlink rmdir pwrite
full_audit:failure      = none
full_audit:facility     = local7
full_audit:priority     = NOTICE

# Example share 
[SHARE_NAME]
access based share enum = yes
browseable = yes
comment = <COMMENT>
create mask = 0660
directory mask = 2770
force group = <FORCE_GROUP_NAME>
path = <PATH>
guest ok = no
public = no
writeable = yes
valid users = +GROUP_1 +GROUP_2
vfs objects = full_audit acl_tdb
full_audit:prefix = %u|%I|%m|%S
full_audit:success = mkdir rename unlink rmdir pwrite
full_audit:failure = none
full_audit:facility = local7
full_audit:priority = NOTICE

Thanks,
  Sergei
> On Jan 7, 2017, at 2:40 AM, Rowland Penny via samba <samba at
lists.samba.org> wrote:
> 
> Can you post your smb.conf and raise your loglevel to 10 and post the
> relevant logs (probably to dropbox or similar)

On Sat, 7 Jan 2017 13:57:26 -0600
Sergei Gerasenko <gerases at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rowland,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I will post the log 10
> output a bit later. Btw, what logs with log level 10 are you
> interested in? 
> 
> Here’s my samba config with sensitive info replaced with placeholders:
> 
> [global]
> access based share enum = yes
> browseable              = yes
> comment                 = <COMMENT>
> create mask             = 0660
> directory mask          = 2770
> force group             = fts_data
> path                    = <PATH>
> guest ok                = no
> public                  = no
> writeable               = yes
> valid users             = +GROUP1 +GROUP2
> vfs objects             = full_audit acl_tdb
> full_audit:prefix       = %u|%I|%m|%S
> full_audit:success      = mkdir rename unlink rmdir pwrite
> full_audit:failure      = none
> full_audit:facility     = local7
> full_audit:priority     = NOTICE
> 
> # Example share 
> [SHARE_NAME]
> access based share enum = yes
> browseable = yes
> comment = <COMMENT>
> create mask = 0660
> directory mask = 2770
> force group = <FORCE_GROUP_NAME>
> path = <PATH>
> guest ok = no
> public = no
> writeable = yes
> valid users = +GROUP_1 +GROUP_2
> vfs objects = full_audit acl_tdb
> full_audit:prefix = %u|%I|%m|%S
> full_audit:success = mkdir rename unlink rmdir pwrite
> full_audit:failure = none
> full_audit:facility = local7
> full_audit:priority = NOTICE
> 
> Thanks,
>   Sergei
> 
> > On Jan 7, 2017, at 2:40 AM, Rowland Penny via samba
> > <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Can you post your smb.conf and raise your loglevel to 10 and post
> > the relevant logs (probably to dropbox or similar)
> 
Lets hold off with logs, do you know that if you remove everything
that should be in a share from the [global] part of your smb.conf, you
get left with just '[global]'. It also doesn't help that everything
that is in [global] is also in the share. 

It looks like you want to set up a standalone server, can I suggest
you read this:

https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_a_Standalone_Server

You might also want to read the smb.conf manpage, 'man smb.conf', for
instance, 'guest ok =no' and 'public = no' are the same thing.

Rowland

> Lets hold off with logs, do you know that if you remove everything
> that should be in a share from the [global] part of your smb.conf, you
> get left with just '[global]’.
The share actually comes from an include file. I made it look like it’s part of
the main config for simplicity.
> It also doesn't help that everything
> that is in [global] is also in the share.
It’s not accidental that I said “example share” in my email. I don’t think that
duplicating directives in the global and individual share sections could lead to
core dumps, or can it?