[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: smbfs Oops with Linux 2.6.3
    On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:

    > On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
    > > Thanks Urban, i have posted the following on bugzilla
    > > ( for testing. But,
    > > it appears racy wrt getattr and win9x servers.

    The 5 second timeout is probably too short. Some bad configs can use a
    long time to connect, possibly more. 30?

    > How about the following to synchronize with smb_newconn()
    > smb_lock_server(server);
    > smb_unlock_server(server);

    Shouldn't "wq" be accessible to both smb_newconn and smb_proc_ops_wait?
    I'd put it in the "server" struct and then have smb_newconn() do this
    when it is done:

    I don't know enough about wait_queue's to understand why it would work
    otherwise. The only thing I can think of is that the condition is true
    before it actually waits on anything.

    Since install_ops isn't the last thing done in smb_newconn perhaps a
    different variable should be used to signal that a new connection is
    there. I would suggest using "server->state == CONN_VALID" and then move
    that assignment to the end of smb_newconn.

    I'm guessing read/write/truncate can't be called before smb_newconn since
    they all require a file to be opened, and open needs getattr (or?). But
    just to be safe how about adding the code below?

    static int

    static struct smb_ops smb_ops_null =
    .readdir = smb_proc_readdir_null,
    .getattr = smb_proc_getattr_null,
    .read = (void *) smb_proc_ops_bug,
    .write = (void *) smb_proc_ops_bug,
    .truncate = (void *) smb_proc_ops_bug,

    If the void* can be avoided by something clever then that is what I really
    meant :)

    > I've already uploaded the new patch on Bugzilla, but i also came across a
    > smb_dir_cache related oops whilst testing, which i'm debugging.

    If you are in cleanup mode the following changes should probably be made:

    server->rcls replaced by req->rq_rcls
    server->err replaced by req->rq_err

    and remove the server->{rcls,err} fields.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.028 / U:118.848 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site