From: David Mathog on
Our NFS/YP/SMB/etc. server has been logging these:

Oct 24 10:15:51 theserver gconfd (root-821): starting (version 2.10.1),
pid 821 user 'root'
Oct 24 10:15:51 theserver gconfd (root-821): Resolved address
"xml:readonly:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory" to a read-only
configuration source at position 0
Oct 24 10:15:51 theserver gconfd (root-821): Resolved address
"xml:readwrite:/root/.gconf" to a writable configuration source at
position 1
Oct 24 10:15:51 theserver gconfd (root-821): Resolved address
"xml:readonly:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults" to a read-only
configuration source at position 2
Oct 24 10:17:51 theserver gconfd (root-821): GConf server is not in use,
shutting down.
Oct 24 10:17:51 theserver gconfd (root-821): Exiting

The server has the blackbox window manager running, but
there is NO use of gnome on this box. In fact the end users cannot
even log onto it through ssh or at the console.
They can of course mount disks that it exports. Something
happening on the client workstations seems
to be triggering these messages, I'd guess gnome startups or
shutdowns. Oddly "locate gconfd" doesn't even find a program
by that name on the server. It does find a plethora of .gconfd
entries in the user's home folders though. The only thing
relevant in rpm seems to be GConf2-2.10.1-2mdk. This
is a Mandriva 2006 system.

Can somebody please explain exactly which binary or script
is generating these messages? Also how is it being started
from the workstations since no gconf related names appear
in either "rpcinfo -p" or "lsof -i"?

Thanks,

David Mathog
From: David Mathog on
David Mathog wrote:
> Our NFS/YP/SMB/etc. server has been logging these:

I've discovered that starting firefox 1.5.0.7 (downloaded from
www.mozilla.com) causes these. WHY???? As I mentioned before,
the console is running blackbox. Starting firefox from an rxvt session
running over a putty ssh tunnel to a copy of Starnet Xwin-32 4.01 on XP
generates the message. Notice the total absence of "gnome" anywhere in
that configuration.

At least it has nothing to do with the client workstations. That's good
because it looked like a security hole otherwise.


Thanks,

David Mathog