[PATCH] Fix Gluster bug - unable to create file/directory under root of the share due to empty dirpath during get_real_filename()
ira at wakeful.net
Wed Aug 22 16:45:20 UTC 2018
It was me.
Reviewed-by: Ira Cooper <ira at samba.org>
I miss hit the reply/reply all button.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:43 PM Michael Adam via samba-technical <
samba-technical at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> On 2018-08-22 at 09:27 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 06:09:25PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > >
> > > Conceptually, changing the return from "" to "."
> > > and changing all existing callers that check for ""
> > > afterwards is semantically not changing much really, is it?
> > >
> > > So I don't get the big concern about this change.
> > Michael you have *no* idea :-).
> > Look into the statcache code (which is *really* old)
> > which also gets passed the dirpath to make sure that
> > is still working if you make this change.
> > Historically, working with the difference between
> > "" and "." in pathnames has been the source of
> > many, *many* Samba pathname bugs.
> > I have (a lot of) historical context that teaches
> > me to be wary here. It you want to get really
> > scared ask Volker about this stuff also :-).
> Yeah, FUD helps convince me. :-)
> It's ok. But cleaning up (later) the areas of code that are
> so scaring is probably a good thing.
> > This is why I ended up re-writing the patch
> > to be a very simple fix after *really* careful
> > review of the possible issues (and I'm still
> > not sure I've gotten them all yet :-).
> > When I post my cleanup patch for you to review
> > you can be sure I've checked out all the possibilities
> > I can think of :-).
> Looking forward to seeing it.
> > > We might want to change that function so that the
> > > callers do not actually have to deal with checking
> > > the dirpath at all but encode it in a return code
> > > or bool or so... Just rambling, sorry.
> > >
> > > But I will buy the benefits of getting a more
> > > isolated patch for the specific problem first.
> > Thanks. Already pushed mine :-).
> Er. Where is the review+? (probably not on the list)
> My mail was more of a review- until we sort out
> this discussion.
> > Your gluster-specific fix, whilst not wrong, isn't general enough.
> Hm. You say it's a gluster-specific bug to be fixed.
> And you fixed it in one layer above the call to
> the gluster specific function. So yours is too
> general (I'd say). But mine fixed it at the gluster level
> and you say it's not general enough. How can that
> be? There's exactly one call between the two places.
> Please explain...
> Thanks - Michael
More information about the samba-technical