Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:21:44 +0800
From:      Rong-En Fan <rafan@infor.org>
To:        Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
Cc:        Barkley Vowk <bvowk@math.ualberta.ca>, delphij@FreeBSD.ORG, rafan@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: rpc.yppasswdd fails in 7.2?
Message-ID:  <20090629112144.GD27380@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw>
In-Reply-To: <20090629094923.GU2884@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
References:  <alpine.BSF.2.00.0906261648070.95627@3jane.math.ualberta.ca> <20090629094923.GU2884@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--11Y7aswkeuHtSBEs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:49:23PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 04:59:29PM -0600, Barkley Vowk wrote:
> > I've got a 7.2 box acting as NIS master, running rpc.yppasswdd. When=20
> > remote users try to change their passwords they see:
> >=20
> > testing1# passwd mytest
> > Changing NIS password for mytest
> > Old Password:
> > New Password:
> > Retype New Password:
> > passwd: pam_chauthtok(): error in service module
> >=20
> > On the server I get this in the logs:
> > rpc.yppasswdd[36858]: pw_mkdb() failed
> >=20
> > I tracked the error message down to line 620 of yppasswdd_server.c, whi=
ch
> > lead me to libutil/pw_util.c.
> >=20
> > It looks like waitpid in mk_pwdb is returning the error "No child=20
> > processes", which then makes mk_pwdb return an error. But the child doe=
s=20
> > run and do it's job as expected. If you edit yppasswdd_server.c to igno=
re=20
> > the return value of mk_pwdb, passwords are changed as expected.
>=20
> I think this is a side-effect of r184459/r186756, that made rpc.yppasswdd=
 to
> ignore SIGCHLD.

It only happens when the master uses /etc/master.passwd instead of
/var/yp/master.passwd.=20

The zombie mentioned in the commit log was yppwupdate. Two possible
soluutions are: we wait until the push is succeed or we use a double
fork. Personally, I prefer the former approach.

Regards,
Rong-En Fan



--11Y7aswkeuHtSBEs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpIo8cACgkQ144QkYb9jGhHNgCgikckvIMIi0guUQ6Vs3cMxRoO
BgYAoIZ21t0k5lSynquMALK6k5Xgv7Wz
=z7s/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--11Y7aswkeuHtSBEs--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090629112144.GD27380>