smbwrapper/smbsh is now working for Linux 2.4
vorlon at netexpress.net
Tue Dec 10 19:17:10 GMT 2002
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:54:52PM -0500, Derrell.Lipman at UnwiredUniverse.com wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 01:27:07PM -0500, Derrell.Lipman at UnwiredUniverse.com
> > wrote:
> >> I have smbwrapper and smbsh working on Debian/woody with the Linux 2.4
> >> kernel and the default C library: libc-2.2.5.so.
> > Yes, I'm interested - please post patches. Pressure of other things has made
> > this a low priority but I'm really happy to apply patches that work for
> > people !
> Ok. The patch is attached. This became a high priority for me when smbmount
> used with automount turned out to be way too slow. This seems substantially
> faster in terms of connection establishment.
> The problems I have encountered with smbsh so far pertain to something that
> Debian is doing in their build process. smbsh works well with bash if bash is
> built from source with nothing other than "./configure;make". Using Debian's
> build process or their bash binary, however, bash crashes after reading the
> .bash_history file. (Debian modifies the default build process and I haven't
> spent the time to determine which change they make causes this.) Similarly,
> the program "hostname" crashes using the default binary. (I haven't tried
> rebuilding that one to see if a simple recompile fixes it.) In both cases,
> they're getting segmentation violations, and I believe there's a function
> pointer not getting resolved properly with the various wrappers provided by
> smbwrapper.so. I'm sure there are other apps which will crash as well, but I
> did a bunch of stuff today in bash in smbsh and it was generally working well.
Hmm -- perhaps that's why I never got anywhere with my own efforts, bash
was the only program I ever tested with. :)
I suspect the key change in the Debian build is enabling of LFS support;
IIRC, it was in an LFS-related call that I saw segfaults happen. LFS is
definitely something that smbsh needs to be able to handle cleanly to be
a viable option to smbmount: it's one thing to be on a filesystem (such
as some version of smbfs) that can't handle large files, and quite
another for the application to crash whenever you run one of the growing
number of applications that use the LFS userspace calls.
I'll scare up some time to try out your patch, and see if I can figure
out what's special about the calls that are failing.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20021210/dc95b228/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical