On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 10:51:10AM -0800, Srikanta Shivanna wrote:
> I observed it while running the following modified torture test:
Great test. I've applied a modified version of it to smbtorture in HEAD
and fixed the bug in Samba's locking implementation. Thanks !
Jeremy.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 10:51:10AM -0800, Srikanta Shivanna wrote:
> I observed it while running the following modified torture test:
Thanks ! That saves me from writing one :-) :-). I'll look into it
asap !
Jeremy.
cli_unlink(&cli1, fname);
torture_close_connection(&cli1);
printf("finished locktest7\n");
return correct;
}
-----Original Message-
From: jra@ [mailto:jra@]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:51 PM
To: Srikanta Shivanna
Cc: samba
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 07:50:22PM -0800, Srikanta Shivanna wrote:
> I noticed a difference in byte range locking behavior between Samba (2.2.x) and
>Windows 2000 server, basically on Samba 2.2.x
> with strict locking enabled, a client process which owns a shared byte range lock
>
I noticed a difference in byte range locking behavior between Samba (2.2.x) and
Windows 2000 server, basically on Samba 2.2.x
with strict locking enabled, a client process which owns a shared byte range lock can
write to the locked region, this is not allowed
on Windows 2000 server. Is there a
Yes, 2.2 has byte range locking!
It is one of the pieces that made us guess a lot and gave lot of fun at
the last CIFS conference with the famous 0/0 locking bug :)
Simo.
On Thu, 2002-06-06 at 15:55, Andrew Esh wrote:
> How well does Samba 2.2 support byte range locking? I have a report
>
How well does Samba 2.2 support byte range locking? I have a report
that there were problems with it in Samba 2.0.7. I wonder if it has
been fixed?
--
Andrew C. Esh mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tricord Systems, Inc.
2905 Northwest Blvd., Suite 20 763-557-9005 (main)
Plymouth, MN 55441
On Mon, 6 May 2002, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
> > Easy to reproduce. I'll fix it soon.
>
> Thanks a bunch. I have a few inpatient users wanting the new version
> of samba for FreeBSD :)
>
> If you don't want to reroll a new version for these fixes, could you
> send me a diff so that I cou
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 02:41:23PM -0500, Gerald Carter wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 10:56:49AM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
> > > I found this in my log.nmbd with -d10
> > >
> > > [2002/05/03 10:54:04, 8] lib/util.c:fcntl_lock(1302
> Easy to reproduce. I'll fix it soon.
Thanks a bunch. I have a few inpatient users wanting the new version
of samba for FreeBSD :)
If you don't want to reroll a new version for these fixes, could you
send me a diff so that I could put it in the FreeBSD port unless you
are planning on relea
On Fri, 3 May 2002, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 10:56:49AM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
> > I found this in my log.nmbd with -d10
> >
> > [2002/05/03 10:54:04, 8] lib/util.c:fcntl_lock(1302)
> > fcntl_lock 4 8 0 1 3
> > [2002/05/03 10:54:04, 8] lib/util.c:fcntl_
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 10:56:49AM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
> I found this in my log.nmbd with -d10
>
> [2002/05/03 10:54:04, 8] lib/util.c:fcntl_lock(1302)
> fcntl_lock 4 8 0 1 3
> [2002/05/03 10:54:04, 8] lib/util.c:fcntl_lock(1340)
> fcntl_lock: Lock call successful
> [2002/05/03
I found this in my log.nmbd with -d10
[2002/05/03 10:54:04, 8] lib/util.c:fcntl_lock(1302)
fcntl_lock 4 8 0 1 3
[2002/05/03 10:54:04, 8] lib/util.c:fcntl_lock(1340)
fcntl_lock: Lock call successful
[2002/05/03 10:54:04, 5] tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(492)
tdb(unknown): tdb_brlock failed (fd=5) at
I'm getting the following on 2.2.4
rns02# smbstatus -d -L
using configfile = /usr/local/etc/smb.conf
Opened status file
Failed to open byte range locking database
ERROR: Failed to initialise locking database
Can't initialise locking module - exiting
the locking database should be /v
14 matches
Mail list logo
