[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#306546: nscd: problem connected to kernel 2.6? -> found working solution for me



Package: nscd
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-21
Followup-For: Bug #306546


some additions: stopping nscd at least enables a few more services.
BUT smbd won't start anymore. so i went into the debug log of samba and
found this:

smbd -S -F -d 40

--snip
Primary group is 0 and contains 0 supplementary groups
smbldap_search: base => [ou=Groups,dc=ai], filter =>
[(&(objectClass=sambaGroupMapping)(gidNumber=65534))], scope => [2]
smbldap_open: already connected to the LDAP server
smbd: pthread_mutex_lock.c:78: __pthread_mutex_lock: Assertion
`mutex->__data.__owner == 0' failed.
===============================================================
INTERNAL ERROR: Signal 6 in pid 8240 (3.0.14a-Debian)
Please read the appendix Bugs of the Samba HOWTO collection
===============================================================
PANIC: internal error
BACKTRACE: 47 stack frames:
--snip

and though, well i know this from the "login problem" described before.
now the "solution":

i just stumbled over this article:
http://jackit.sourceforge.net/docs/faq.php#a53

LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.19 smbd -S -F -d 40

works for me. it is a very deperate and ugly solution, but seems to work
for now.

just to make sure we talk the same versions here:
ii  nscd                     2.3.2.ds1-21
ii  slapd                    2.2.23-1
ii  libc6                    2.3.2.ds1-21
ii  libnss-ldap              238-1


is that an important info? i have this bug on all smp-systems. we have
another up-to-date sarge system with single cpu that does not have this
problem.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.10
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)

Versions of packages nscd depends on:
ii  libc6                       2.3.2.ds1-21 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an



Reply to: