[Samba] RE: [PATCH] smbclient cli_list_new bug
vlads at sympatico.ca
Fri Jun 28 00:57:04 GMT 2002
I tested smbclient from samba-2.2.5 + you patch connect to win2000sp2.
It works for me no problems.
Was testing on the same set of files as original tests for smbfs.
I did not found how to install smbmount from samba source so I installed
back samba-2.2.4 from rpm and got the same old problem in smbclient!
This proves that your patch works for smbclient.
No tests has been done for windows 98
samba-2.2.5 + you kernel patch for smbfs has not been tested together
samba-2.2.4-2 + you kernel patch for smbfs works fine!
Thanks for your effort!
From: Urban Widmark [mailto:urban at teststation.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 5:46 PM
To: Vlad Skarzhevskyy
Cc: samba at lists.samba.org
Subject: [PATCH] smbclient cli_list_new bug
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Vlad Skarzhevskyy wrote:
> >That is hard to do since the code isn't part of samba ... :)
> The same algorithm should be used in smbclient. This is what I was
> The same readdir bug are in smbclient.
It certainly is (but it wasn't easy to read that from your message ;).
Do not use the continue bit to continue a find_first/find_next.
Under some circumstances NT/win2k (and win9x?) will drop files when
doing that. This patch mimics NT behaviour of sending lastname and
not using the continue bit.
I also removed the resume key flag, but didn't fix
Using your smbclient testscript I can easily trigger the failure with a
vanilla 2.2-something smbclient. You seemed to be able to trigger this
error much more easily than me before, so perhaps you'd like to give this
patch a spin?
This patch borrows from some smbfs code I made to support win95 after
adding the lastname code you tested. Ironically this makes smbclient not
work with win95 anymore ... :)
That needs fixing before anyone should consider this for the tree.
I'll fix that once you have verified that this works for you.
(And I'll release an update smbfs patch once I get my bits untangled from
 - NT4sp6 talking to a samba server. Should perhaps verify that they
send the same when talking to each other + win2k + xp.
More information about the samba