samba: nmbd stopping fails once?

Jens Stroebel drifter at
Mon Jul 23 04:42:12 PDT 2007

Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 7/20/07, Jens Stroebel <drifter at> wrote:
> Hmm, it's hard for me to see what's going on because I only ever get
> one nmbd process. But when I kill the parent smbd process, the
> children all die. What happens when you just kill the parent (26943)
> directly? Do any nmbd processes remain?

Nope; I'd say that

- killproc erronomeously kills the child first
- parent respawns a child
- parent gets killed, child remains
- killproc finds child -> failure

Checking by killing the child by hand seems to confirm this, as a child
gets started when I kill the existing child wheras all nmbd processes
are gone if I kill only the parent.

!! When the child was killed, the parent seems to stop reacting on
SIGTERM, needing KILL to be really killed; doing so leaves the child
that got started, which matches with what can be seen using the
un-altered sambe init script with "stop" !!

> Out of curiosity, what version of the lfs-bootscripts are you using?
> I've been fixing bugs in the functions over the past few months. I
> changed killproc to be more consistent, but I don't know if that would
> change anything here.

I'm tracking LFS development quite closely, so I use
LFS-Bootscripts-20070420 as in the current development book. I thought
this to be the actual version, but as you say you've made changes over
the last months, maybe you didn't roll a new release yet?

		[...trace snipped...]

> And this is what causes it to fail. The script is assuming that it
> shouldn't find any more pids after the killing process. You may be
> able to "solve" the problem just by telling killproc to use the
> pidfile. This is more correct anyway, since you want to kill the
> parent daemon. Try changing the bootscript to this:
> killproc -p /var/run/ /usr/sbin/nmbd

I'll do that. [waiting time  ...] Yes, this works fine :).
Getting the pid from the file, the killproc call kills the
parent, which terminates its child, too.

> This would have the nice side effect that the child daemon (26944) is
> not killed by kill, but rather the parent daemon (26943). I'd be
> curious to know if the extra spawned daemon (27127) happens in this
> case.

No extra daemon with using the file.

		Thanks for your help, once again.
drifter at
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed,  hands acquire shaking,  the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list