enterprise-support team mailing list archive

[ Christian Ehrhardt  <1792400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is "just one more" case of the common old init scripts didn't
consider there could be more (=containers).

Interesting is that the stop already runs with the --pidfile so the stop
will not kill it.

But the start will be blocked, as the existance of such a process will
make --start be a no-op.

Man page:
Note: unless --pid or --pidfile are specified, start-stop-daemon behaves similar to killall(1).  start-stop-daemon will scan the process table looking  for  any  processes  which match  the  process  name, parent pid, uid, and/or gid (if specified). Any matching process will prevent --start from starting the daemon. All matching processes will be sent the TERM signal (or the one specified via --signal or --retry) if --stop is specified. For daemons which have long-lived children which need to live through a --stop, you must  specify a pidfile.

-S, --start [--] arguments
Check  for the existence of a specified process.  If such a process exists, start-stop-daemon does nothing, and exits with error status 1 (0 if --oknodo is specified).  If such a process does not exist, it starts an instance, using either the executable specified by --exec or, if specified, by --startas.  Any arguments given after -- on  the command line are passed unmodified to the program being started.


The --oknodo will make it a silent non fatal exit int hat case - as it
is fine to run "start" if it is running already.


I'd recommend "--pidfile $SMBDPID" instead of the suggested path, but otherwise would agree to the fix.

It should be safe as that is essentially how later versions (Bionic) do
it (via MAINPID tracking in systemd).

** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
       Status: New => Confirmed

** Tags added: server-next

** Also affects: samba (Ubuntu Xenial)
   Importance: Undecided
       Status: New

** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu Xenial)
       Status: New => Triaged

** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
       Status: Confirmed => Fix Released

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server/Client Support Team, which is subscribed to samba in Ubuntu.
Matching subscriptions: Ubuntu Server/Client Support Team
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1792400

Title:
  smbd failed in host when both lxd container and host have smbd

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/1792400/+subscriptions