[PATCH][WIP] Make vfs_acl_xattr use hash of the posix ACL

Jeremy Allison jra at samba.org
Tue Oct 30 15:15:24 MDT 2012

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:55:49AM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 13:05 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > Ok, I've tried in master and can't reproduce this.
> > > 
> > > Can you let me know how you're getting this problem to occur ?
> > 
> > I'm onto this one.  When I converted the get_nt_acl VFS call to take a
> > mem_ctx, I didn't catch all the talloc_tos() users.  I'm going over the
> > posix_acls.c file to pass down the mem_ctx to the right places.
> So much for that theory, the remaining talloc_tos() calls are all
> reasonable or at least only on the 'set' side.  Clearly at some layer we
> don't honour the interface promise and allocate the returned NT ACL
> fully on mem_ctx.  The placement of the talloc_stackframe() simply means
> we actually notice the incorrect memory tree.

Well one could argue the new talloc_stackframe() placement *created*
the incorrect memory tree :-), but that's a battle I've lost so I'm
just sucking my own sour grapes here :-).

> However, it's not in the posix_acls or vfs_acl_common code as far as I
> can tell, because valgrind over that code (now quite well exercised by
> samba.tests.posixacl) is clean.

Yep, I can't see any talloc heirarchy error either (and I've been
looking very closely :-). I can't reproduce Christian's error in
master (and I've tried using Windows, smbclient and smbcacls).

Christian, did you do a git clean -d -x -f before re-making ?
I know it's a long shot but I really can't see any errors in
the current ACL memory hierarchy code.



More information about the samba-technical mailing list