Incorrect file size returned in the Respond of "FILE_SUPERSEDE Create"
kdinh at peaxy.net
Wed Apr 29 10:22:23 MDT 2015
It makes sense now. I missed the selftest/knownfail earlier.
Thank you for a clear explanation.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 06:29:05PM -0700, Kenny Dinh wrote:
> > Jeremy,
> > Using the patch you attached, and running ./bin/smbtorture against SAMBA4
> > server. After sending SUPERSEDE create, io.ntcreatex.out.create_action
> > contains 0x0. However when running the test as "make test
> > TESTS=samba4.raw.open", I received 0x3 as the value of
> > io.ntcreatex.out.create_action. That failed the "make test"
> > +
> > + CHECK_VAL(io.ntcreatex.out.create_action, FILE_WAS_SUPERSEDED);
> > +
> > I don't understand what is the expectation. I'm not sure how to make
> the test
> > case work for both ./bin/smbtorture and "make test".
> The problem you're running into is when you run:
> make test TESTS=samba4.raw.open
> you're running against the (unmaintained) ntvfs file
> server (which we *really* should remove from the
> codebase) - which will certainly fail.
> If you look at my patch carefully it has 2 hunks
> in the test part. I added:
> diff --git a/selftest/knownfail b/selftest/knownfail
> index d4a6923..ab77e0f 100644
> --- a/selftest/knownfail
> +++ b/selftest/knownfail
> @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@
> # some operations don't work over the CIFS NTVFS backend yet (eg.
> ^samba4.raw.lock.*.async # bug 6960
> ^samba4.smb2.lock.*.multiple-unlock # bug 6959
> ^samba4.raw.sfileinfo.*.end-of-file\(.*\)$ # bug 6962
> ^samba4.raw.oplock.*.batch22 # bug 6963
> to the knownfail file, which flags this test as expected
> to fail against the ntvfs server. The test passes as expected
> against smbd.
> If you apply my complete patchset and just type:
> make test TESTS=raw.open
> you'll find it passes.
> Sorry for the confusion. For 4.3.x we should really
> do the work and remove the alternate file server as
> it's fallen too far behind smbd to be useful.
> The added test passes when run manually against
> Windows 2012r2 as well, which is how I know it's
> good :-).
More information about the samba-technical