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.
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>
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>
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>
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>
