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.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Thu Oct 10 01:04:33 UTC 2019 on sn-devel-184
This will contain a summary of the "most restrictive" share mode and
lease, i.e. intersection of all share_access entries and the union of
all access_mask and leases in the share mode array. This way
open_mode_check in the non-conflicting case will only have to look at
the summary and not walk the share mode array.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This moves share_modes[] from "struct share_mode_data" into a separate
share_entries.tdb with a sorted array of fixed-length (132 byte)
"struct share_mode_entry" entries.
I know it's one huge commit, but I did not see a way to keep both data
structures and associated code working together without a lot of code
duplication after having centralized all the code accessing the
share_modes[] array into a few routines.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Previously, we did this only when writing out the locking.tdb
record. That was because we had places where the index of a particular
share mode entry mattered while operating on the array. This is no
longer the case, so we can remove stale entries early.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Avoid the full fsp, this makes the indexing of the share mode array
clearer, and it makes the next commit easier
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Why? Next commit will make share_mode_forall_leases() use
share_mode_forall_entries(), and that does not necessarily have to
depend on "share_mode_lock". And as we can pass the required
information via "private_data", don't embed the "share_mode_lock"
reference into this lowlevel library routine.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Abstract away the fact that we store the share modes as an array inside
"struct share_mode_data".
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
The same lease can be used via different TCP connections (yes, we have
tests for this!). At the end of downgrade_lease() we update all fsp's
with fsps_lease_update() that link to the lease that just was
changed. However, this is only in the local process, this is not
cross-smbd. So other smbds using the same lease can use stale
information and for example get the mandatory locking wrong.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Less explicit talloc. Right now dbwrap_rbt behind the scenes does a
dbwrap_fetch_locked(), but that will eventually change.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
The routine isn't called find__delete_on_close_token. Also avoid
casts.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This allows the vfs backend to detect a retry and keep state between
the retries.
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>
Returning NT_STATUS_FILE_LOCK_CONFLICT is a SMB1 only detail
for delayed brlock requests, which is handled in
smbd_smb1_do_locks*().
The brlock layer should be consistent even for posix locks.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14113
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
They implement the logic from [MS-FSA].
The following commits will use these functions in other locations.
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>
Directly initialized variables give compilers less reason to complain
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Ralph Böhme <slow@samba.org>
remove_lease_if_stale() does not have the check
if (e == e2) {
/* Not ourselves. */
continue;
}
that remove_share_mode_lease() had. However, remove_share_mode_lease()
has already set e->op_type=NO_OPLOCK, so that the
if (e->op_type != LEASE_OPLOCK) {
continue;
}
statement has the same effect.
Why? The next commit will need it for proper error path cleanup.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
The fsp carries all required information also for leases. There's no
need to pass that as additional parameters
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Yes, this adds another peek from locking/ back into smbd/proto.h, but
locking/locking.c does the same already.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Makes the interface more obvious to me. Also, I want to remove
fsp->share_access, which is not really used anywhere after the fsp has
been fully established.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This is not a real error, it happens when the share mode record is not
around.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Uri Simchoni <uri@samba.org>
