Question on how smbd handles signals (possible bug)

tvrtko.ursulin at tvrtko.ursulin at
Thu Sep 25 14:22:19 GMT 2008 at wrote on 
25/09/2008 10:39:08:

> Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE> wrote on 24/09/2008 
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:40:54AM +0100, tvrtko.ursulin at 
> wrote:
> > 
> > > This suggest that Samba is expecting signals from lock breakers in 
> order 
> > > to release files but that is not in line with what you just said. So 
> am 
> > > confused. Why it should be necessary to turn off oplocks, even the 
> > > page says that should never be needed?
> > 
> > The problem is that so far nobody but Samba makes use of the
> > lease calls, so we might have bugs here. Your host
> > apparently has an application that takes oplocks, and this
> > is a new situation. Timely responding to external oplock
> > break signals under all circumstances is a major rewrite
> > that will not be done soon.
> I will try and collect information on what else is running on the 
> and get back to you with that. In the meantime, could you help me 
> understand what you think is happening and how it is related to "kernel 
> oplocks = yes"? (and I will also find out if setting this option to "no" 

> helps)

Small update. Issue was confirmed on these Samba versions (note how they 
are from various distributions):

"kernel oplocks = no" workaround didn't help on:

Issue can't be replicated on:
3.2.4 (self compiled)

Best regards,


Sophos Plc, The Pentagon, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon,
OX14 3YP, United Kingdom.

Company Reg No 2096520. VAT Reg No GB 348 3873 20.

More information about the samba-technical mailing list