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

Re: NIS/NFS/Squeeze - All files have "4294967294" for GID and UID on NFS-mounted files/directories



On 01/08/2011 08:25 PM, Tom H wrote:
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Joseph Lenox<lordofhyphens@gmail.com>  wrote:
I'm running a series of Debian 6.0 "Squeeze" clients on my network (in the
process of upgrading from lenny) that mount NFS from a Solaris 10 (x86) box
through autofs (5.0.4-3.2 amd64). They all do their authentication through
NIS (which is also being served by the same box). Another Solaris 10 (sparc)
machine is the DNS server for our domain. Unfortunately, the NIS domain and
the DNS domain are not the same.

Every file is being listed as belonging to UID/GID 4294967294, which I see
from Google appears to be a variant of "nobody".

I had had this issue with the few Solaris 10 clients we had, but rearranging
the "hosts" entry in those machines' nsswitch.conf to "files dns nis" solved
the issue. This solution does not work for the Debian 6.0 systems. I can log
in to the 6.0 machines with NIS.

I also have Debian 5.0.4 (Lenny) systems on the network, which have autofs5
(5.0.3-3 amd64) installed, which do not show the problem.

Mounting the nfs share by hand shows the same symptoms.

Both machines have identical entries in /etc/resolv.conf  (just changed the
identifying marks), and have the NIS/NFS server in their /etc/hosts.

I've gone over these settings for hours now, and can't determine what's
going on exactly. According to what I've read, "nobody" is being set because
some nfs daemon can't match user ids between the two systems. All of the
systems are authenticating on the SAME NIS system.
Squeeze must be defaulting to nfsv4.

Make sure that "NFSMAPID_DOMAIN" in "/etc/default/nfs" on the Solaris
box matches "Domain" in "/etc/idmapd.conf" on the Squeeze boxes.

If "NFSMAPID_DOMAIN" isn't set, you should be able to get it from "cat
/var/run/nfs4_domain".


Anywhere this info could be added for the other people who will undoubtedly run into this when Squeeze goes stable?


Reply to: