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.
Make sure all fields in the target struct are initialized
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
This code went in with e8e98c9ea0 in 2001 without any mention in the
commit message.
I don't remember all details, but there was some discussion around the
offset=0,length=0 lock being somehow special. These days [MS-FSA]
defines the required behaviour (don't conflict) and we implement that
behaviour.
If someone still remembers why this code is in and thinks it's
worthwhile, that's what version control is for.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15362
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Björn Jacke <bjacke@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Mon Apr 24 14:13:35 UTC 2023 on atb-devel-224
This changes the talloc hierarchy for a few callers, but as
talloc_tos() was initially designed exactly for this purpose (printing
SIDs in DEBUG), it should be okay.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
It's good to have a consistent set of hash_size/flags for all aspects of
an open file handle. Currently we're using 4 databases:
smbXsrv_open_global.tdb, leases.tdb, locking.tdb and brlock.tdb.
While at it also crank up the hashsize if the smbXsrv_tcon and smbXsrv_session
TDBs. The default TDB hash size is insanely small and disk space is cheap these
days, by going with the much larger hash size we get O(1) lookup instead of O(n)
for moderate to large loads with a few thousand objects.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Mon Dec 19 16:40:15 UTC 2022 on sn-devel-184
After I found that nobody calls stat_cache_add() anymore, there was no
reason to keep the rest of statcache.c.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This reverts commit de493a3e3b:
s3:locking: Remove dead code
Found by Coverity.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Isaac Boukris <iboukris@samba.org>
dbwrap_do_locked() correctly returns saved_errno which is a possible
errno returned by close() inside fd_close_posix_fn().
Signed-off-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
sizeof(struct share_mode_lock) is only 28 bytes instead of 32 bytes
on 32bit systems...
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
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>
Autobuild-User(master): Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Tue Sep 20 01:34:55 UTC 2022 on sn-devel-184
When adding or deleting share mode entries elements, we typically
have a pattern like this:
1. get the g_lock via get_[existing_]share_mode_lock()
2. do some checking of the existing record
3. add/delete a share_mode_entry to the record
4. do some vfs operations still protected by the g_lock
5. (optional) cleanup of the record on failure
6. release the g_lock
We can optimize this to:
- Run 1-3. under a tdb chainlock
- Only protect vfs operations with the g_lock
if a new file was created/will be deleted
- Regrab the g_lock for a cleanup.
The new share_mode_entry_prepare_lock()
allows the caller to run a function within a tdb chainlock
similar to share_mode_do_locked_vfs_denied() where vfs calls are denied
and the execution is done within a tdb chainlock.
But the callback function is allowed to decide if it wants to
keep the lock at the g_lock layer on return.
The decision is kept in struct share_mode_entry_prepare_state,
which is then passed to share_mode_entry_prepare_unlock()
with an optional callback to do some cleanup under the
still existing g_lock or a regrabed g_lock.
In the ideal case the callback function passed to
share_mode_entry_prepare_lock() is able to decide that
it can drop the g_lock and the share_mode_entry_prepare_unlock().
gets a NULL callback as there's nothing to cleanup.
In this case share_mode_entry_prepare_unlock() is a noop.
This will allow us to avoid fallbacks to the dbwrap_watch based
waiting for the g_lock in the SMB2 Create and Close code paths.
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 means that in callers function will run under a single tdb chainlock,
which means callers from the outside will never see the record being
locked at g_lock level, as the g_lock is only held in memory.
within the single tdb chainlock. As a result we'll very unlikely hit
the case where we need to wait for a g_lock using the dbwrap_watch
logic.
Review with: git show -w
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'll soon make use of callback functions passed to g_lock_lock(),
during these callback function we'll only be allowed to
call 'g_lock_lock_cb_state' based functions.
Given that nesting of share_mode call, we need to
make it transparent to the callers and the detail
that we optimize using g_lock_lock() callbacks.
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 pairs with get_share_mode_lock_internal() and will allow us
to use a struct share_mode_lock stack variable in future,
which will be much cheaper.
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 detaches the logic from the talloc(mem_ctx, struct share_mode_lock).
In future we will have cases where we use a stack variable instead,
which will be much cheaper.
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>
The effective value of share_mode_lock_key_refcount
is 'share_mode_lock_key_refcount + static_share_mode_data_refcount',
which is quite confusing.
This complexity is not needed and we can just use
share_mode_lock_key_refcount.
This will also simplify further changes.
Review with: git show -U15 -w
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 have better debug messages and will also make
further changes easier.
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 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>
