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

libnss-ldap udev problem



I have the same problem described in the Bug 375077, despite this bug
appears as fixed in 251-4 version, my hosts running Debian Lenny show
the same behavior reported in it. Four hosts with Lenny installed (and
different architectures: i386, arm and mips) have this exact same issue:
udev hangs indefinitely when using libnss-ldap. No timeouts, no error
messages, ... nothing, I can press Ctrl+C and the boot process continue.
If I configure nsswitch to use only local files, udev boots correctly.

I am using libnss-ldap, and my /etc/nsswitch.conf is this:

passwd:         files ldap [UNAVAIL=return]
group:          files ldap [UNAVAIL=return]
shadow:         files ldap [UNAVAIL=return]
hosts:          files dns ldap [UNAVAIL=return]
networks:       files ldap [UNAVAIL=return]
protocols:      db files ldap [UNAVAIL=return]
services:       db files ldap [UNAVAIL=return]
ethers:         db files
rpc:            db files ldap [UNAVAIL=return]
automount:      files ldap [UNAVAIL=return]

And libnss-ldap is configured with bind_policy soft.

I have detected that some udev-rules search for groups not
in /etc/groups (like nvram or fuse) I added them to local files, but reading the bug report (IMHO),
bind_policy soft would be enough to exit immediately if network nor LDAP
is available and udev would boot normaly. Currently all of my Debian
Lenny hosts show this same problem during boot, udev hangs without any error message.

The most strange is that I've create the nvram group in all 4 hosts and in one of them udev boots
normally now, but other three shows the same problem: udev hangs if nsswitch is configured to seek libnss-ldap.

I don't like to reopen again the old bug before comenting it in the list and
probably this is a misconfiguration or libnss-ldap installation problem.
Can someone provide some clues? 

Thank you



-- 
----------------------------------
Marc Franquesa
Lady 3Jane http://www.l3jane.net/
Warbaby





Reply to: