On Tue, 2022-05-24 at 14:25 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:> 17.05.2022 06:54, Andrew Bartlett via samba wrote: > > Honestly, what we need is the backtrace. For some reason these pakages > > have been built without our backtrace support, so please find and use > > the gdb_backtrace script as a panic action, eg > > Hi Andrew! > > What do you mean "built without backtrace support"? How one builds with > or without backtrace support, - I don't know this term. > > If you're referring to gcc -g when compiling (debugging info), that is > shipped in separate packages in Debian, samba-dbgsym (and samba-libs-dbgsym > etc), https://wiki.debian.org/HowToGetABacktrace describes how to install > these -dbgsym packages.This is sort of the inverse of what this MR is about: https://gitlab.com/samba-team/samba/-/merge_requests/2534 In short, if libunwind is found on the system at build time, Samba will do an internal stack unwind that at least gives us a first clue, but ideally we need the full gdb backtrace, ideally by having the gdb_backtrace script packaged so the admin can specify it. Long ago Debian packages used to mail the admin when Samba crashed with a backtrace, I don't know when that stopped happening. "We" should add info on installing the right packages and enabling this to https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Bug_Reporting to give folks a clue so I stop repeating myself on the lists... Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett (he/him) https://samba.org/~abartlet/ Samba Team Member (since 2001) https://samba.org Samba Developer, Catalyst IT https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
[Catching up with old(ish) emails, hopefully] 25.05.2022 01:10, Andrew Bartlett via samba wrote:> On Tue, 2022-05-24 at 14:25 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:..>> What do you mean "built without backtrace support"? How one builds with >> or without backtrace support, - I don't know this term....> In short, if libunwind is found on the system at build time, Samba willAha. I didn't know, and apparently no one in the Debian samba team did know, either. I've added libunwind-dev build dependency now, and it is picked up by the build procedure. Indeed, in debian we had no stack backtrace support in samba, now we do have it. I just tried - killing smbd with SIGSEGV produces a nice backtrace now.> do an internal stack unwind that at least gives us a first clue, but > ideally we need the full gdb backtrace, ideally by having the > gdb_backtrace script packaged so the admin can specify it. > > Long ago Debian packages used to mail the admin when Samba crashed with > a backtrace, I don't know when that stopped happening.It is still the same, nothing had changed in this area. But with time, working email setup is less and less common on a typical linux system, so the reports aren't being emailed as often as before. Also, it depends on gdb to be installed to actually *produce* a report in the first place.> "We" should add info on installing the right packages and enabling this > to https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Bug_Reporting to give folks a clue > so I stop repeating myself on the lists...Actually this wiki page isn't useful now. But the problem is: my first conclusion after trying to find some info about one or another aspect of samba was that the samba wiki is right to useless generally. And after several tries, it doesn't occur to me anymore to think about using samba wiki at all.. hwell.. /mjt
Hi, if i understand this right, you will provide new packages?> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Michael Tokarev <mjt at tls.msk.ru> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 29. Mai 2022 18:06 > An: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org>; Dirk Laurenz > <samba at laurenz.ws>; 'sambalist' <samba at lists.samba.org> > Betreff: Re: [Samba] Broken Dependencies? > > [Catching up with old(ish) emails, hopefully] > > 25.05.2022 01:10, Andrew Bartlett via samba wrote: > > On Tue, 2022-05-24 at 14:25 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > .. > >> What do you mean "built without backtrace support"? How one builds > >> with or without backtrace support, - I don't know this term. > ... > > In short, if libunwind is found on the system at build time, Samba > > will > > Aha. I didn't know, and apparently no one in the Debian samba team did > know, either. I've added libunwind-dev build dependency now, and it is picked > up by the build procedure. Indeed, in debian we had no stack backtrace > support in samba, now we do have it. I just tried - killing smbd with SIGSEGV > produces a nice backtrace now. > > > do an internal stack unwind that at least gives us a first clue, but > > ideally we need the full gdb backtrace, ideally by having the > > gdb_backtrace script packaged so the admin can specify it. > > > > Long ago Debian packages used to mail the admin when Samba crashed > > with a backtrace, I don't know when that stopped happening. > > It is still the same, nothing had changed in this area. But with time, working > email setup is less and less common on a typical linux system, so the reports > aren't being emailed as often as before. Also, it depends on gdb to be installed > to actually *produce* a report in the first place. > > > "We" should add info on installing the right packages and enabling > > this to https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Bug_Reporting to give folks a > > clue so I stop repeating myself on the lists... > > Actually this wiki page isn't useful now. But the problem is: my first conclusion > after trying to find some info about one or another aspect of samba was that > the samba wiki is right to useless generally. And after several tries, it doesn't > occur to me anymore to think about using samba wiki at all.. hwell.. > > /mjt