IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
This is similar to multilock3, but uses a read-only
(LOCKING_ANDX_SHARED_LOCK) locks for the 2nd lock
request.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14113
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
This is similar to multilock3, but uses a read-only
(LOCKING_ANDX_SHARED_LOCK) locks for the first lock
request.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14113
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
This is similar to multilock3, but uses read-only
(LOCKING_ANDX_SHARED_LOCK) locks for the blocked
requests.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14113
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
This demonstrates that unrelated lock ranges
are not blocked by other blocked requests on the same
fsp.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14113
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Add one use of popt_set_cmdline_credentials().
Fix 80 column limits when cmdline_credentials changes
to popt_get_cmdline_credentials().
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Needed as there was a proposal to re-architect
our multi-lock to dispense with lock order precedence,
which isn't how Windows does it (unfortunately,
as the new code would have been cleaner :-).
Tested against the Win2k12 SMB1 implementation.
This test is designed to show that
lock precedence on the server is based
on the order received, not on the ability
to grant. For example:
A blocked lock request containing 2 locks
will be satified before a subsequent blocked
lock request over one of the same regions,
even if that region is then unlocked. E.g.
(a) lock 100->109, 120->129 (granted)
(b) lock 100->109, 120-129 (blocks)
(c) lock 100->109 (blocks)
(d) unlock 100->109
lock (c) will not be granted as lock (b)
will take precedence.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Andreas Schneider <asn@cryptomilk.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Tue Jul 8 10:16:59 CEST 2014 on sn-devel-104
This ensures that if this fails, it is reported as a subunit error correctly.
Andrew Bartlett
Autobuild-User: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date: Fri May 18 09:35:13 CEST 2012 on sn-devel-104
This is consistent with the test names used by selftest, should
make the names less confusing and easier to integrate with other tools.
Autobuild-User: Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date: Sat Dec 11 04:16:13 CET 2010 on sn-devel-104
The signed/unsignedness does match (always unsigned). The bitlength (64 bit) on
all regular platforms does also. Therefore simply add a cast to
"unsigned long long".
this converts all callers that use the Samba4 loadparm lp_ calling
convention to use the lpcfg_ prefix.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Upstream subunit makes a ":" after commands optional, so I've fixed any
places where we might trigger commands accidently. I've filed a bug
about this in subunit.
Two new torture parameters:
* smbexit_pdu_support: if the Server supports the Exit command
* range_not_locked_on_file_close: whether the server returns the
NT_STATUS_RANGE_NOT_LOCKED error when a file is closed which has a
pending lock request. Windows returns this error, though per the
spec, this error should only be returned to an unlock request.
See what happens when we have multiple outstanding lock requests and
we try to cancel both of them within a single LockingAndX.
On Windows, it seems only the first lock in the array is cancelled,
and the second is left pending. Though, this behavior goes against
the MS-CIFS spec.
* test that 2 locks in a single LockAndX are transactional
* test that 1 unlock and 1 lock in a single LockAndX are not
transactional
* test that SMB2 doesn't like mixed lock/unlock in a single
PDU
Abstract the server requirements to pass some BRL tests.
* The new default for >64bit lock tests, is that the server should
return STATUS_INVALID_LOCK_RANGE.
* Add parameter for targets that don't implement DENY_DOS
