access_mask needed for rename

[Kenny Dinh]

I will have to run through the entire smbtorture test suite after that
change.

I just had confirmation that we want to keep the behavior to be more
compatible to SMB1.  So for now, no change to that code section will be
made.

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 02:42:41PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 02:31:52PM -0700, Kenny Dinh wrote:
> > > Thank again for the tips, Jeremy!
> > >
> > > I was going to make that change locally since SMB2 is more prevalent
> than
> > > SMB1 but one never knows.
> >
> > I'm checking again which of the tests depends on this, but
> > even if I can't figure out how to fix it for SMB1 it's
> > probably a good idea to propose that fix for smb2.
>
> Yep - the following change:
>
> diff --git a/source3/smbd/trans2.c b/source3/smbd/trans2.c
> index 6999b2d..9042fcb 100644
> --- a/source3/smbd/trans2.c
> +++ b/source3/smbd/trans2.c
> @@ -7044,7 +7044,7 @@ static NTSTATUS smb_file_rename_information(connection_struct
> *conn,
>                 status = rename_internals(ctx, conn, req, smb_fname_src,
>                                           smb_fname_dst, 0, overwrite,
> false,
>                                           dest_has_wcard,
> -                                         FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES);
> +                                         DELETE_ACCESS);
>         }
>   out:
>         TALLOC_FREE(smb_fname_dst);
>
> breaks:
>
> samba3.raw.oplock and samba3.raw.rename.
>
> UNEXPECTED(failure): samba3.raw.oplock.exclusive7(ad_dc)
> REASON: Exception: Exception: ../source4/torture/raw/oplock.c:789:
> Incorrect status NT_STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION - should be NT_STATUS_OK
> BATCH19: open a file with an batch oplock (share mode: none)
> setpathinfo rename info should trigger a break to none
> Acking to level II [0x01] in oplock handler
> UNEXPECTED(failure): samba3.raw.oplock.batch19(ad_dc)
> REASON: Exception: Exception: ../source4/torture/raw/oplock.c:2765:
> Incorrect status NT_STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION - should be NT_STATUS_OK
> BATCH20: open a file with an batch oplock (share mode: all)
> Acking to level II [0x01] in oplock handler
> UNEXPECTED(failure): samba3.raw.oplock.batch20(ad_dc)
> REASON: Exception: Exception: ../source4/torture/raw/oplock.c:3128:
> Incorrect status NT_STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION - should be NT_STATUS_OK
>
>
> UNEXPECTED(failure): samba3.raw.rename.trans2rename(nt4_dc)
> REASON: Exception: Exception: ../source4/torture/raw/oplock.c:2901:
> Incorrect status NT_STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION - should be NT_STATUS_OK
>
> These are tests over SMB1. The question is - do they also
> break over SMB2 ?
>
> I suggest you check that before making and deploying the
> change - this could break real life apps.
>
> Jeremy.
>