[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 16:47:22 UTC 2018
To be clear: my RB+ is for jra's patch.
Stupid e-mail client.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:45 PM Ira Cooper <ira at wakeful.net> wrote:
> 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