[Samba] Re: Dangling MS Access DB Lock Files *.ldb

[Dragan Krnic]

>>>> I might have unwittingly made the impression that the problem only came with 3.0.20. 
>>>> The same problem was present in 3.0.14 as well as 3.0.4. It's a very intermittent 
>>>> problem which has been haunting me for months now.
>>> Then it's not this particular bug.
>>
>> No, it ain't. There's a dangling *.ldb file there write now. But now there are 2 PIDs
>> listed as holding the *.MDB file open with "DENY_DOS" and "RDWR" sharing both with the
>> same timestamp "Fri Oct 14 19:58:09 2005", whereas formerly it used to be only one open
>> of *.mdb and one of *.ldb file. The *.ldb file was opened "RDONLY" about 10 minutes
>> earlier by one of the 2 contestants. Can I do some more forensic on the logs?
> 
> Ok, if you can reproduce this bug with 3.0.20b then refresh me with the problem
> and then let's look at it closer.

Yes. Of course. I've just compiled and installed 3.0.20b and set a watchdog to
observe it.

I was thinking of adding a repair action to the watchdog script that would identify
the smbd PID keeping the *.ldb MS Access DB lock file open for so long and kill it,
but the command "net rpc file" never lists what I can easily see on the status page
of SWAT if I continuously refresh it until by chance one of the clients opens it.
The "net rpc file

   only lists "0       \PIPE\samr           0x35   0      dummy user

all the time. Is there another CLI utility which lists the same thing as SWAT does?

Regards
Dragan

PS.: I've severely edited the verbosity of a samba log for the previous incident,
so that the MS Access rain-dance can easily be followed to the point where the
offending client for some reason reopens the lock file after once successfully
opening it with numopen=1, meaning that nobody else claims it until he reopens
it, when numopen increments to =2 for obvious readons, and then never remembers 
to close it the same number of times. It might be one of those MS tricks to scare 
the users off Samba? 

Would you like to take a look at it, if I send it to you off-samba-list?