Lock order assertion failure

Lukasz Zalewski lukas at eecs.qmul.ac.uk
Sat Sep 22 04:40:24 MDT 2012


On 22/09/2012 00:17, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-21 at 16:11 +0100, Lukasz Zalewski wrote:
>> On 21/09/12 16:07, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2012-09-21 at 14:22 +0100, Lukasz Zalewski wrote:
>>>> On 19/09/12 19:05, David Rivera wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ricky,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep you're right, it is a different panic than the one you had. I posted
>>>>> the info in my previous email but I should have included it again.
>>>>> Here is the backtrace:  http://pastebin.com/Z5R0sXHZ . Samba Version
>>>>> 4.1.0pre1-GIT-ea96d79.
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I'm also experiencing smbd crashes (more less daily) using
>>>> 4.1.0pre1-GIT-ea96d79.
>>>>
>>>> Here is an sniplet from the log file:
>>>> [2012/09/21 12:23:24.576002,  0]
>>>> ../lib/dbwrap/dbwrap.c:193(dbwrap_check_lock_order)
>>>>      Lock order violation: Trying
>>>> /usr/local/samba/var/lock/smbXsrv_session_global.tdb at 1 while
>>>> /usr/local/samba/var/lock/locking.tdb at 1 is locked
>>>> [2012/09/21 12:23:24.576148,  0]
>>>> ../lib/dbwrap/dbwrap.c:133(debug_lock_order)
>>>>      lock order:  1:/usr/local/samba/var/lock/locking.tdb 2:<none>  3:<none>
>>>> [2012/09/21 12:23:24.576236,  0] ../source3/lib/util.c:810(smb_panic_s3)
>>>>      PANIC (pid 25048): invalid lock_order
>>>
>>> Thanks Lukasz,
>>>
>>> Can you please file a bug with this.  This is different to the previous
>>> crashes, as this is a deliberate assertion attempting to avoid
>>> deadlocks.  As such, at least we understand why we assert, if not why we
>>> got there.
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>> Would you like me to do it now with the above info, or with complete
>> backtrace (i need to wait for it to happen again)?
>
> It looks like metze just fixed this in master.  Can you check out master
> and confirm?

Hi Andrew,
Already up and running will let you know in a few days

L



More information about the samba-technical mailing list