s4/torture: port SMBv1 RAW-LOCK tests to SMBv2

[tridge at samba.org]

Hi Steven,

 > I certainly agree that following Windows file server behavior
 > bit-for-bit is not desirable.  The W2K8 "pretty please" lock issue is
 > perfect example of that.  It's an obvious bug in Microsoft's
 > implementation where asking for a range which is already locked on the
 > same handle will unlock that range.

yep, and I pointed out a bug almost identical to this to Microsoft a
couple of years ago (when SMB2 first came out). Their locking code for
SMB2 has been lousy for a long time :-)

 > Though, for new tests, especially involving SMB2, we have to start with
 > the Windows behavior and then modify from there.

yes, but with their SMB2 implementation we need to be extra careful,
as its very new code, and seems to be quite buggy. (well, our SMB2
implementation is probably just as buggy, or more so, so the same
applies to our code too!).

 > I've opened bugs 6932 and 6933 to track the two issues found in the
 > Samba4 server by the SMB2 lock tests.

Thanks very much for that! I've fixed the issues and closed both bugs
now.

Cheers, Tridge