Re: [sisyphus] smbfs locking in 2.4.20

[AntonFarygin <rider@altlinux.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1651 bytes --]

Grigory Batalov пишет:

> Bart Oldeman из Dosemu Team обнаружил, что в ядре 2.4.20
>отсутствует блокировка файлов на smbfs. Скорее всего,
>он тестировал "чистое" ядро или от Алана Кокса.
>
> А как обстоят дела в нашем 2.4.20-alt2/altX ?
>Если у нас есть walkaround, нельзя ли его присоветовать
>коллегам из Dosemu ?
>
К сожалению, у нас наложены патчи с этого самого нижнего URL'а ;-(

Rgds,
Rider

>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:28:18 -0500 (EST)
>From: Bart Oldeman <oldeman@math.ohio-state.edu>
>To: Gregor Ibic <gregor.ibic@intelicom.si>
>Subject: WARNING: smbfs and locking (was RE: [PATCH] (locking) (was Re: dosemu and CLIPPER locks (again))))
>
>
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Gregor Ibic wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I cant, it is locked. It says resource deadlock avoided.
>>    
>>
>
>ok I browsed around a bit and looked at the kernel source, here's the real
>answer.
>
>Current (linux kernel 2.4.20) smbfs doesn't support locking at all.
>
>you may look at
>http://www.hojdpunkten.ac.se/054/samba
>to see some experimental patches though.
>NFS *does* support locking though.
>
>So if you see locking "working" with smbfs it is actually by accident and
>not by design.
>
>This means that it is very well possible to corrupt your DOS databases
>if you access them via smbfs, and there's nothing that DOSEMU can do about
>it.
>
>Now, why does a Win client access the file when DOSEMU "locks" it? This is
>because there actually is no lock at all!
>
>And the other way around, what happens is that: DOSEMU tries to apply a
>lock to the file, the filesystem fails, and the DOS app hence claims that
>access is denied.
>
>Bart
>
>  
>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]