[PATCH] make flapping smbcontrol test more informative
jra at samba.org
Mon Feb 26 22:38:58 UTC 2018
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 07:11:18AM +1300, Gary Lockyer via samba-technical wrote:
> Ouch this was added for the pre-fork process model work and it was
> intended to catch gross failures in the start up.
> So it could just be limited to just the prefork test environments,
> currently only addc_no_ntlm.
> My preference though would be to get it working for the standard model
> as well, but I'm unsure how to do this. Any thoughts, suggestions.
If you've got a TOC/TOU race it's difficult to see
how this test can survive in its current form.
To make it reliable you must eliminate the race,
and irpc_all_servers() is only ever going to
get you a 'snapshot' of processes available to
> On 25/02/18 22:35, Ralph Böhme via samba-technical wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 09:07:06PM +1300, Douglas Bagnall via samba-technical wrote:
> >> And then I thought: with multi-process fork-on-demand LDAP, we should
> >> expect a race between listing the processes and pinging them. They
> >> disappear all the time.
> >> processes = self.msg_ctx.irpc_all_servers()
> >> for p in processes:
> >> for id in p.ids:
> >> if p.name != "samba":
> >> self.check_run("%s %d %s" % (COMMAND, id.pid, PING),
> >> msg="trying to ping %s" % p.name)
> >> so I was wrong here:
> >>>>> This is a canary, I suspect -- the test itself is sound (sort of),
> >> the test is not sound.
> > hehe, ouch! Good catch! :)
> > -slow
More information about the samba-technical