[Samba] POLL: Does anyone actually use multiple passdb
backends on the same server?
werner.maes at cc.kuleuven.be
Tue Aug 8 15:01:25 GMT 2006
At 16:39 8/08/2006, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > anyway I still find it regrettable that multiple
> > backends are no longer possible since we have our
> > users stored in LDAP and the machine-accounts
> > on the local PDC.
>No offense, but it's too late to bring that up now. 3.0.23
>was in development for 6 months. The original thread on
>this was back in February:
>This is a systemic problem with this list. No one seems
>to pay any attention until the release is done and over.
off course you're right. but I don't think that one man could change
to be honest, I've read it but forgot to reply
> > a colleague of mine has some serious issues with
> > 3.0.23a, that's why I'm no upgrading yet.
> > just for information this is what he sees in his logs:
> > dumping core in /usr/local/samba/var/cores/smbd
> > [2006/08/08 14:16:37, 0] passdb/pdb_get_set.c:pdb_get_group_sid(164)
> > pdb_get_group_sid: Failed to find Unix account for s0163566
> > [2006/08/08 14:16:37, 0] smbd/sec_ctx.c:push_sec_ctx(194)
> > Security context stack overflow!
> > [2006/08/08 14:16:37, 0] lib/util.c:smb_panic(1592)
> > PANIC (pid 27484): Security context stack overflow!
> > [2006/08/08 14:16:37, 0] lib/util.c:log_stack_trace(1699)
> > BACKTRACE: 64 stack frames:
> > #0 /usr/local/samba/sbin/smbd(log_stack_trace+0x22) [0x82128c6]
> > #1 /usr/local/samba/sbin/smbd(smb_panic+0x6f) [0x8212766]
> > #2 /usr/local/samba/sbin/smbd(push_sec_ctx+0x6b) [0x80d49ce]
>Is there a bug report on this ? It won't get fixed if we
>don't know about it. And since 3.0.23b has just been released,
>it may not be fixed in that either.
No, it has not been fixed in 3.0.23b. there is no bug report as far as I know.
he downgraded his server (since it was a production server) to an
earlier version of samba.
More information about the samba