Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 19:57:20 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Bill Paul <wpaul@freefall.freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org, peter@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NIS breakage Message-ID: <199701191757.TAA05466@grackle.grondar.za>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill Paul wrote: > > and lo1 [127.0.0.2 and another subnet]. I have Apache attached to one of > > the IPs on lo1. > > I wish to heck I knew what it is you're trying to accomplish with this > second loopback interface. I am trying to prototype a firewall/router. This second loopback is to make the host look as multihomed as possible, as I don't have a third box and more ethernet to do that with. > > Jan 19 16:57:28 grunt portmap[161]: svc_run: - select failed: Bad address > > Jan 19 16:57:28 grunt portmap[161]: svc_run returned unexpectedly > > Jan 19 16:57:28 grunt /kernel: pid 161 (portmap), uid 1: exited on signal 6 > > > > On the client side, everything just hangs - ^C needed to break out. > > > > Just before attempting to change the password, I did a `ps -ax', and > > everything looked normal - no multiple yp* or anything. > > Uh, Mark? It said that portmap died. What did you expect was going to > happen? Nothing in RPC works without portmap. Read again - all was fine _before_ changing the password. Changing the password _triggered_ the above failure. > > Clues? > > portmap and ypbind use their own svc_run() loops. (ypserv does too, > and it's a little odd that you're not having trouble with that, unless > the server is running on a different host.) I'm confused, mainly because > sendmail blew up in an accept() rather than a select(). I was thinking > maybe something in the new RPC changes Peter made might be clobbering > file descriptors, but now I'm not too sure. Because of the instability, I am running master and slave servers. Both seem to work (judging by ypcat, logging in and all). Mail/NIS on my 486 box - (3.0-REAL-current also) has no problem, and that has only ed0/lo0. > Now for the questions: do you have any other systems running the > same build of -current? If so, do they have the same problems? Can Yes, No. > you also do me a favor and get rid of that second loopback interface > and see what happens then? (And I mean really get rid of it: configure > it out of the kernel, don't just ifconfig it down.) Will do. > The only way I'm going to be able to track this down is to load a > -current snapshot on my test box, since I don't see problems like this > with 2.2-BETA (thank goodness). > > *sigh* I don't have time for this. Sorry! :-) M -- Mark Murray PGP key fingerprint = 80 36 6E 40 83 D6 8A 36 This .sig is umop ap!sdn. BC 06 EA 0E 7A F2 CE CE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701191757.TAA05466>