Patch: Fixed patch for moving RSVD/SHVXD to vfs_default

Michael Adam obnox at
Fri Sep 11 20:42:14 UTC 2015

On 2015-09-11 at 09:12 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 08:12:43AM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > 
> > I fully disagree here!
> > 
> > The point of this patch was, according to the commit message, to
> > 
> >   "give VFS module writers a chance to handle RSVD opens
> >    if they want to"
> > 
> > This is not an urgent bugfix. It does not justify introducing
> > new layer violations or aggravating those we already have in
> > place. Instead, I think this completely reasonable motivation
> > would have been a perfect case for discussing and doing the
> > conecptually right changes without haste.
> > 
> > I did not manage to come back to this topic earlier, so it has
> > now landed this way. I will try to get the discussion going
> > again now... ;-)
> OK, so I disagree on this being a layering violation.
> VFS modules need to get access to the create context
> data,

Those create contexts are SMB specific. Period.

Hence the VFS layer (which corresponds to the NT File
System or below - posix) does not know about them.

Some of them may have a corresponding flag or similar
further down in the vfs layer, but not in this generality.
This is my understanding/concern.

Starting with Samba 4.0, Metze and I specifically have been
trying to work towards a better layering in the vfs, ripping
several SMB specific things out of the VFS layer (fsp and
friends), and this change just goes back into the opposite

> and they're already being passed to VFS_CREATE
> (initially for vfs_fruit).

Yeah, that was the precedent, where this
layering violation was introduced. It just
slipped my attention. See mails further up in
this thread.

Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list