[PATCH] Fix bug #13121 - Non-smbd processes using kernel oplocks can hang smbd
Jeremy Allison
jra at samba.org
Wed Nov 29 17:26:12 UTC 2017
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:23:09AM +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 08:43 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for persevering with this. I'm OK with you
> > marking it flakey now you can reproduce locally.
>
> Good.
>
> > I'm planning to write a non-Samba standalone
> > test program to try and reproduce the problem
> > on your cloud VM's which seem to see the problem
> > much more reliably.
> >
> > It still looks like a kernel/missing signal bug to me, but a
> > standalone program should be able to distinguish
> > this.
> >
> > In the meantime we still need to run the test
> > as it's the first test we've had that tests the
> > interaction between smbd / non-smbd kernel oplock
> > users.
>
> Sadly in the tests current design it will need to be a skip.
>
> Samba torture tests need to report failure not with torture_comment,
> but with one of the macros that emits a "failure: " via
> torture_result(torture_ctx, TORTURE_FAIL, .... otherwise that subunit
> regards this as a test crash (error) rather than a specific failure and
> we can't knownfail it.
>
> if (child_exit_code != 0) {
> torture_comment(tctx, "Bad child exit code %d\n",
> child_exit_code);
> ret = false;
> }
>
> In short, this just needs to be reworked to use
> torture_assert_int_equal_goto() matching the code above.
OK, can you fix that up and I'll review ? I will get
to it but it might not be until tomorrow as I have
some more urgent work-related stuff to do first.
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list