a few cleanup patches

[Jeremy Allison]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 08:57:41PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:56:22AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > No, I don't think we need to do that. I think this is the
> > only issue that was missed, the rest of the code looks
> > good - and as I say I really want to get rid of that
> > horrible INTERNAL_OPEN_ONLY long term as it leads to
> > mistakes :-(. As you know I'm a little busy with something
> > else at the moment :-) else I'd be making it a higher priority.
> > 
> > Just review and push if you agree !
> 
> We 100% need tests for this. This code is so freaking tricky
> that we can't let anything controversial in without full
> test coverage. Please push the reverts of the two
> controversial patches.

Sure, we need tests I agree. I don't think we have
any tests for the nasty INTERNAL_OPEN_ONLY code
path other than if the xattr set fails on the
file attributes set :-(.

The old printing code uses it to check driver
file versions (it shouldn't) and the completely
unused SMB1 file_copy code also seems to use it.
Oh yeah, and the get/set file security RPCs
used by Win9x clients uses it (again, it shouldn't).

Once I've got some more free time I will eradicate
this pest from our code base once and for all :-).

But yeah, testing right now would be nice..

Jeremy.