RFC: dbwrap_ctdb and empty vs deleted records

[Ralph Böhme]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 02:45:51PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 03:14:02PM +0200, Ralph Böhme wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 01:43:00PM +0200, Ralph Boehme wrote:
> > > I *think* my patch might be a proper fix without the risk of a
> > > deadlock, because it *won't* call out to ctdb but return ENOENT (im
> > > terms of NTSTATUS).
> > > 
> > > I'd highly appreciate some feedback. In case we don't want to take the
> > > risk of this change, I'll prepare a patch for parse_share_modes() and
> > > callers.
> > 
> > *ping*
> 
> I like your patch. Samba can live without empty records, and your patch
> solves this really bad problem. However, and I don't want to block it just
> for that, reading 925625b52886d40b50fc's commit message this deadlock
> came as a bad surprise. Do we have sufficient information to reproduce
> that deadlock, just to make sure with your patch this does not happen?

yes, that would be really helpfull if anyone who worked on
925625b52886d40b50fc would remember how this could be reproduced.

Michael? Björn?

Cheerio!
-slow