Comment 12 for bug 28021

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 08:36:41 -0000
From: "Andy Chittenden" <email address hidden>
To: "Christian Perrier" <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>
Subject: RE: Bug#346069: attaching smb.conf

> Is the bug worth investigating, given that it occurs with a setting
> that is not deeply supported?

Well I spoke too soon saying it no longer occurs: over the weekend I
received a number of emails giving the same backtrace that I reported
originally. In syslog, there are a number of backtraces from winbindd:

Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: [2006/01/07 10:04:38, 0]
lib/util_sock.c:write_data(556)
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: write_data: write failure. Error
=3D Connection reset by peer
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: [2006/01/07 10:04:38, 0]
libsmb/clientgen.c:write_socket(138)
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: write_socket: Error writing 108
bytes to socket 3: ERRNO =3D Connection reset by peer
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: [2006/01/07 10:04:38, 0]
libsmb/clientgen.c:cli_send_smb(168)
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: Error writing 108 bytes to
client. -1 (Connection reset by peer)
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: [2006/01/07 10:04:38, 0]
rpc_client/cli_ds.c:rpccli_ds_enum_domain_trusts(93)
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: PANIC: assert failed at
rpc_client/cli_ds.c(93)
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: [2006/01/07 10:04:38, 0]
lib/util.c:smb_panic2(1544)
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: smb_panic(): calling panic action
[/usr/share/samba/panic-action 6677]
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: [2006/01/07 10:04:38, 0]
lib/util.c:smb_panic2(1552)
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: smb_panic(): action returned
status 0
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: [2006/01/07 10:04:38, 0]
lib/util.c:smb_panic2(1554)
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: PANIC: bad auth level
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: [2006/01/07 10:04:38, 0]
lib/util.c:smb_panic2(1562)
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: BACKTRACE: 12 stack frames:
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: #0
/usr/sbin/winbindd(smb_panic2+0x6d) [0x555555605aed]
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: #1
/usr/sbin/winbindd(rpc_api_pipe_req+0x129) [0x55555566c9a9]
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: #2
/usr/sbin/winbindd(rpccli_ds_enum_domain_trusts+0x19f) [0x555555678dff]
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: #3 /usr/sbin/winbindd
[0x5555555b3814]
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: #4 /usr/sbin/winbindd
[0x5555555a50dc]
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: #5
/usr/sbin/winbindd(winbindd_dual_list_trusted_domains+0x63)
[0x5555555a96b3]
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: #6 /usr/sbin/winbindd
[0x5555555b4e01]
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: #7
/usr/sbin/winbindd(init_child_connection+0x24f) [0x55555559f82f]
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: #8
/usr/sbin/winbindd(rescan_trusted_domains+0xfd) [0x55555559f9ad]
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: #9
/usr/sbin/winbindd(main+0x44b) [0x555555598e2b]
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: #10
/lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xda) [0x2aaaab9644ca]
Jan 7 10:04:38 boco winbindd[6677]: #11 /usr/sbin/winbindd
[0x55555559774a]

> My opinion: I'm not sure that the Samba Team considers
> "security=3Dserver" as completely obsolete and, on the other hand, we
> seem to have valid debug output so it might be worth sending the whole
> stuff to upstream Bugzilla. Comments?

Personally, IMHO for all bugs (samba or not) if the problem is not
debian specific and there's sufficient evidence, I think all reported
bugs should be reported upstream as the upstream code will benefit.

--=20
Andy, BlueArc Engineering