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.
These will be used in future to call them unter an existing share mode
lock...
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
There are no callers left dereferencing it.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
In some places we just rely on share_mode_lock_access_private_data()
to work, if needed the caller should already check it's result...
Note that share_mode_lock_assert_private_data() can't fail up to
now, but we want to change that in future and only load it on
demand.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This will simplify some (mostly debug) code soon.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We only need to access lck->data once...
This will simplify further changes.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
In future we should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock'
as much as possible.
This will also allow us to load struct share_mode_data
only if required in future.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This allows us get rid of the otherwise unused share_mode_do_locked().
It means we only have one code path that handles the g_lock handling.
This looks like a performance degradation, but all callers of
share_mode_wakeup_waiters() already took the share_mode_lock,
so we only increment the refcount. Note the additional
talloc(mem_ctx, struct share_mode_lock) will be optimized away
in the next commits.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
share_mode_do_locked() will be make static soon.
Here we just want to avoid concurrent access to brlock.tdb
in order to maintain the lock order, we're not interested in the
locking.tdb content at all, expect that there's at least one
entry.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
share_mode_do_locked() will be make static soon.
Here we just want to avoid concurrent access to brlock.tdb
in order to maintain the lock order, we're not interested in the
locking.tdb content at all, expect that there's at least one
entry and we want to wake potential watchers.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
These function will add an abstraction to protect
a function that is not allowed to call vfs functions
or allow vfs functions to be called.
Currently these are implemented similar,
but we'll optimize them in the next commits.
The idea is that share_mode_do_locked_vfs_denied()
will be able to run fast enough in order to run
under a tdb chainlock (just a pthread mutex).
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Kernel oplocks can block in the same way vfs operations can do.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Code denying vfs calls can do:
{
struct smb_vfs_deny_state vfs_deny = {};
smb_vfs_deny_push(&vfs_deny);
VFS calls are not allowed here...
smb_vfs_deny_pop(&vfs_deny);
}
This will allow us to safely run some code under a
tdb chainlock later...
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This allows us to make VFS_FIND local to smbd/vfs.c in the
next step.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We don't need to protect this with g_lock_lock/g_lock_unlock
as we just want the current flags, we're still protected by the
dbwrap layer lock.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
It will soon need to use 'struct locking_tdb_data'
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This means we flush share_mode_data at the same time...
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This will allow us to use it in other places too
and we'll avoid to storing multiple times.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
share_mode_data->fresh was very similar, but only set
and never used.
Now we remember 'not_stored' instead, the 'not_' is easier
as ndr_pull sets [skip] elements to 0.
We use this as indication to move the value to
memcache.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
NT_STATUS_NOT_FOUND is not a real error in most cases so we should keep
it on level 10, but all other errors should never be without notice...
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Most of the calls in set_delete_on_close_lck() are checked with
asserts, so do panic in all situation where things go wrong in an
unexpected way.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This should never fail without notice...
Note we already checked for NT_STATUS_NOT_FOUND before.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
These should never fail without notice, share_mode_do_locked() should
never fail with NT_STATUS_NOT_FOUND for an existing fsp.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
