RE: delete on close problems(Content Filtered by PrivateArk)
I've been tryin' to do this with Win2K. Here are the results: Scenario: User A opens for delete on close, and then user B opens for read Samba: User B fails Win2K: User B successful I used win2k clients that run CreateFile(GENERIC_READ ,... , SHARE_READ | SHARE_DELETE ,..., FILE_DELETE_ON_CLOSE , ...) for user A CreateFile(GENERIC_READ ,... , SHARE_READ | SHARE_DELETE ,..., 0 , ...) for user B THEY DO NOT BEHAVE THE SAME WAY! Now, the second thing is, if we take a DIFFERENT scenario, Where user A opens for read Then user B opens for read Then user A causes trans2setpathinfo and sets the delete_on_close bit in samba When user B closes the file, it MIGHT be deleted, although user B did not open it for delete on close, because the check For delete_on_close relies on the share_entry, and it does not check if the pid that marked delete_on_close is the pid that now closes the file. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 7:00 PM To: Nir Livni Cc: 'Simo Sorce'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: delete on close problems(Content Filtered by PrivateArk) On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 03:14:51PM +0200, Nir Livni wrote: > Samba does not allow user B to open the file for read after user A has > opened it for delete_on_close. NT/2K server allows it. > > My question is why samba allows user A to open delete_on_close after > user B opens for read, And does not allow user B open for read after > user A opens for delete_on_close. Because "that's what W2K does" :-). Seriously, check out the torture tester which tries to determine the exact delete-on-close semantics. Samba just mimics the W2K ones. Jeremy.
Re: delete on close problems(Content Filtered by PrivateArk)
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 03:14:51PM +0200, Nir Livni wrote: > Samba does not allow user B to open the file for read after user A has > opened it for delete_on_close. > NT/2K server allows it. > > My question is why samba allows user A to open delete_on_close after user B > opens for read, > And does not allow user B open for read after user A opens for > delete_on_close. Because "that's what W2K does" :-). Seriously, check out the torture tester which tries to determine the exact delete-on-close semantics. Samba just mimics the W2K ones. Jeremy.
RE: delete on close problems(Content Filtered by PrivateArk)
Samba does not allow user B to open the file for read after user A has opened it for delete_on_close. NT/2K server allows it. My question is why samba allows user A to open delete_on_close after user B opens for read, And does not allow user B open for read after user A opens for delete_on_close. -Original Message- From: Simo Sorce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 3:03 PM To: Nir Livni Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: delete on close problems(Content Filtered by PrivateArk) On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 13:48, Nir Livni wrote: > if user B opens the file for read (and SHARE_READ | SHARE_DELETE) and > only then user A opens the file for DELETE_ON_CLOSE, both open > requests succeed. > > 1. Is this behaviour normal ? Unfortunately there's no way to tell something is normal if not testing the same against an NT/2k server. If the same happens there, then it is "normal". Simo. -- Simo Sorce - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xsec s.r.l. via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399 <>
