Michael Adam obnox at
Thu Oct 9 15:18:47 MDT 2014

On 2014-10-09 at 13:04 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 05:40:44PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > On 2014-10-08 at 08:21 -0700, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > > 
> > > OK, so there is more work to do. Why do we need to keep the file open
> > > at the UNIX level? Surely it is the same to open it again when the
> > > client sends a D2NC or whatever.
> > 
> > We don't strictly need to keep the unix file open
> > (as proven by the implementation of durables),
> > but this would make several things easier.
> > In particular, only this way we would have a chance
> > to notice when a non-samba-process tries to access
> > the file.
> Only easier if we find a way to "park" open
> file hanles whilst the owning process goes
> away.

In the new mode the process and the file handle simply does not
go away if the client is disconnected. The reconncted client's
tcp socket is passed to the smbd that still holds the file open.

> IMHO in our current architecture closing and
> re-opening would be a much easier first step.

Sure, bug my point was rather that we might benefit from
the infrastructure that we are currently building anyways
for Multi-Channel.

And remember that we have to give guarantees to the client.
We can of course count external access to disconnected
handles as force majeure, but if we close the handle, we
we not only don't have a means of preventing external
access, but we don't even have a definite means of noticing it.

Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list