[PATCH] Add pidhigh in the common response header

Jeremy Allison jra at samba.org
Fri Apr 15 04:58:59 UTC 2016

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:36:10AM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:41:56PM +0200, per.forlin at gmail.com wrote:
> > > From: Per Forlin <per.forlin at gmail.com>
> > > 
> > > The pidhigh field is required to specify larger PID than 0xFFFF.
> > > A client sending a samba negotiation request may rely on a correct
> > > PID in the returning response header. The client may consider the
> > > response as invalid if the PID in the request doesn't match with
> > > the reply. Until now only PIDs up to 0xFFFF are supported since
> > > pidhigh has been set to 0 in the response. To resolve this issue the
> > > PID high is added to the response header.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Per Forlin <per.forlin at gmail.com>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org>
> > 
> > Can I get a second Team reviewer ? Once I do I'll
> > log a bug and push with the correct BUG: url, as
> > I think we'll want this fix in 4.4.next, 4.3.next,
> > 4.2.next.
> A torture test test_pidhigh needs to be fixed as well as we currently
> expect to fail if high pid is in use on the server.
> See source4/torture/raw/lock.c:470 or around.

Actually, I'm not sure it does (I did look at this).
That test is testing the interaction between pid sent in
the session field in the header, and the pid used
in the SMB1 byte range locking.

The pid sent and stored in the SMB1 byte range
lock requests is limited to 16-bits by definition.

This means it doesn't look at pidhigh (only pidlow)
when checking for blocking_smblctx conflicts.

Actually, even though I think this change is correct,
what I should really do is add another varient
of the source4/torture/raw/lock.c that sets a >16-bit
pid on the initial lock, and see if the MOD(>16-bit)
pid context conflicts.

Might not get to this until after next week, so
I'll wait until I've done that test to persue
this. Thanks for pushing me on this :-).


More information about the samba-technical mailing list