[Samba] Issue with Samba version 3.0.25b on Debian

[Dan Peachey]

> On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 10:24:07PM +0100, Dan Peachey wrote:
> > I have an issue with Samba version 3.0.25b on Debian. I am receiving a
> > number of mails from my server with the following:
> >
> > > The Samba 'panic action' script, /usr/share/samba/panic-action,
> > > was called for PID 18483 ().
> 
> We need a backtrace from that. The log file should have it.

Thanks for the reply. Here is the backtrace info from the log file:

--
[2007/08/08 08:49:54, 1] smbd/service.c:make_connection_snum(1033)
  ian (192.168.1.35) connect to service shared initially as user ianlang
(uid=1005, gid=106) (pid 18483)
[2007/08/08 09:00:43, 0] lib/util.c:smb_panic(1632)
  PANIC (pid 18483): Could not store share mode entry

[2007/08/08 09:00:43, 0] lib/util.c:log_stack_trace(1736)
  BACKTRACE: 11 stack frames:
   #0 /usr/sbin/smbd(log_stack_trace+0x2d) [0x827c5cd]
   #1 /usr/sbin/smbd(smb_panic+0x5d) [0x827c6fd]
   #2 /usr/sbin/smbd [0x8220b28]
   #3 /usr/sbin/smbd(talloc_free+0x1c1) [0x8261a81]
   #4 /usr/sbin/smbd(open_directory+0x5e4) [0x80f4be4]
   #5 /usr/sbin/smbd(reply_ntcreate_and_X+0x10b5) [0x80c1105]
   #6 /usr/sbin/smbd [0x810ace0]
   #7 /usr/sbin/smbd(smbd_process+0x836) [0x810c076]
   #8 /usr/sbin/smbd(main+0xbdd) [0x834ffad]
   #9 /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe0) [0xb7b4b030]
   #10 /usr/sbin/smbd [0x8093f31]
[2007/08/08 09:00:43, 0] lib/util.c:smb_panic(1637)
  smb_panic(): calling panic action [/usr/share/samba/panic-action 18483]
[2007/08/08 09:00:43, 0] lib/util.c:smb_panic(1645)
  smb_panic(): action returned status 0
[2007/08/08 09:00:43, 0] lib/fault.c:dump_core(181)
  dumping core in /var/log/samba/cores/smbd
--
 
> > Also, when running 'smbstatus' I get the following at the bottom of the
> > output:
> >
> > --
> > tdb(/var/run/samba/locking.tdb): tdb_rec_read bad magic 0xd9fee666 at
> > offset=678200
> > locked file list truncated
> 
> That's not desirable, but normal. smbstatus opens the tdbs
> readonly, which means no locking. When there's heavy
> activity on a larger file server, these messages are
> possible. It should not happen in quiet periods.

I just checked now which is a quiet period and indeed, the messages do not
show. One less thing to worry about :-)

Regards,

Dan