[PATCH] - NetConnEnum implementation

[Jeremy Allison]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:07:50PM +0530, Shekhar Amlekar wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Please find attached patches that implement the NetConnEnum functionality 
> for computing share connections.
> 
> Some background - while using MMC to delete a share, MMC uses NetConnEnum 
> call to query the server to find out the active share connections. If 
> there are some, a prompt is displayed to the administrator that asks for 
> confirmation of share deletion. Since Samba does not implement this call, 
> a prompt is displayed every time and the information about active share 
> connections is not provided to the admin. Hence, the need for this 
> implementation.
> 
> A comment about the implementation. Since the locking tdb does not store 
> the share name or number, and changing tdb format is lot more work, the 
> following implementation is an approximation. However, it does provide 
> important information on share connections and open files to the 
> administrator, and also gets rid of the false prompt.
> 
> 0001 - Added routines to count share connections.

In 0001 - Added routines to count share connections.

+/****************************************************************************
+ process an entry from the connection db.
+****************************************************************************/
+
+static int share_conn_fn(struct smbXsrv_tcon_global0 *tcon,
+                        void *data)
+{
+       struct share_conn_stat *scs = data;
+
+       if (!process_exists(tcon->server_id)) {
+               return 0;
+       }
+
+       if (strequal(tcon->share_name, scs->sharename)) {
+               scs->count++;
+               scs->svrid_arr = talloc_realloc(scs->ctx, scs->svrid_arr,
+                                               struct server_id, scs->count);
+               scs->svrid_arr[scs->count-1] = tcon->server_id;
+       }
+
+       return 0;
+}
+

talloc_realloc needs a NULL check afterwards. Please fix and repost
the entire patchset. Seems ok to me but I'll re-review the repost.

Cheers,

	Jeremy.