[PATCH] Fix bug 9722 - Samba does not properly handle Oplock breaks in compound requests

[Richard Sharpe]

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Richard Sharpe
<realrichardsharpe at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:
>> Here is a bugfix for master for Bug 9722, discovered by Richard.
>>
>> It includes a torture test (written by Richard) that
>> reproduces the Windows client test case that discovered
>> the bug.
>>
>> Passes all testing here (I've also tested with SMB3
>> encryption turned on :-).
>>
>> Please review and push if you approve.
>
> Is there a problem here?
>
> diff --git a/source3/smbd/smb2_server.c b/source3/smbd/smb2_server.c
> index 57e9c7b..9a55d6a 100644
> --- a/source3/smbd/smb2_server.c
> +++ b/source3/smbd/smb2_server.c
> @@ -1599,6 +1599,14 @@ static NTSTATUS smbd_smb2_request_process_cancel(struct s
> mbd_smb2_request *req)
>                 uint64_t message_id;
>                 uint64_t async_id;
>
> +               if (cur->compound_related) {
> +                       /*
> +                        * Never cancel anything in a compound request.
> +                        * Way too hard to deal with the result.
> +                        */
> +                       continue;
> +               }
> +
>                 outhdr = SMBD_SMB2_OUT_HDR_PTR(cur);
>
>                 message_id = BVAL(outhdr, SMB2_HDR_MESSAGE_ID);
> --
> 1.8.1.2
>
> because just before the for loop that this goes in, we do this:
>
>         /*
>          * we don't need the request anymore
>          * cancel requests never have a response
>          */
>         DLIST_REMOVE(req->sconn->smb2.requests, req);
>         TALLOC_FREE(req);
>
> which seems to suggest that the request is now gone from our view.

OK, I only have this one question about this patch series. After that
I am happy to push.

-- 
Regards,
Richard Sharpe
(何以解憂？唯有杜康。--曹操)