Locking database cleanup?

[Jeremy Allison]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 10:20:22AM +0400, Alexey Lobanov wrote:
> Hello all.
> 
> A quite simple sutuation. One SMBD servicing one user said "segfault" 
> (e.g., because of CUPS interaction problem) and died. Yes, we are in 
> Brave Robust Unix World, and one daemon death does not affect other 
> daemons and remote clients. But... the locking database still contains 
> records related to this non-existent PID, and any new attempts to use 
> same files fail. The affected share becomes completely unusable until we 
> restart the *whole* Samba subsystem, killing open files of all the other 
> innocent clients. Welcome back to the monolythic server.
> 
> Is this behavior normal for Samba 2 and 3 architecture? Or I do not 
> understand something?

You're not understanding something. As part of the validation
process when reading a record containing open and locking info,
we validate the pid associated with that record by sending it
a zero signal. If we get an ESRCH (no such process) error back
we delete the record.

So long as pid's don't wrap this should be robust.

Jeremy.