A patch to add support for smbd_server_connection_terminate_ex to allow for explicit debug messages in some cases

Richard Sharpe realrichardsharpe at gmail.com
Mon May 27 20:22:11 MDT 2013


On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 19:11 -0700, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 01:24 -0700, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>> >> Hi folks,
>> >>
>> >> Here is a patch that makes life easier. I have modified one exit,
>> >> although there are a couple more where we should also scream on exit.
>> >>
>> >> If it looks OK, please push.
>> >
>> > I still don't understand why you don't want to just call exit_server()
>> > in this case.
>>
>> Good point. Out of respect for the way things are currently done I
>> tried to follow some semblance of the same.
>
> So the main difference with exit_server() is that it is for really fatal
> conditions that should just never happen, where we want a backtrace and
> core for inspection, to ensure it doesn't happen again.  Is this one of
> those?

I believe we have seen cases in the field where smbds are exiting
without telling us anything. One was where writev was returning EINVAL
due to a bug in the ixgbe driver (and it was an ancient version of the
driver), but there is likely to be other cases.

Samba was hiding this info from us in some misguided attempt to not
spam log files. (IMO, of course.)

Of course, there are cases where it should exit silently, but not, I
believe when there have been protocol violations or in cases like I
have described above where an underlying bug caused a problem.

It took a week for us (where I work) to figure out what the problem
was because Samba was being reticent about telling us the problem and
it was not until I had a customer system at a level 10 debug that I
had a hint as to the problem.

-- 
Regards,
Richard Sharpe
(何以解憂?唯有杜康。--曹操)


More information about the samba-technical mailing list