linux-kernel - Re: [linux-cifs-client] Re: [PATCH] cifs: fix fh_mutex locking in cifs_reopen

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1246231089.2956.3.camel@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Date:	Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:18:09 -0400
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jeremy Allison <jra@...ba.org>, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org
Subject: Re: [linux-cifs-client] Re: [PATCH] cifs: fix fh_mutex locking in 
 cifs_reopen_file

On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 14:02 -0500, Steve French wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Steve French<smfrench@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Jeff Layton<jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> > In any case, as long as we are sure we are hitting a Samba server
> > limit (or server side
> > per-process limit), we are ok and can continue to review/merge the very large
> > inode patches.  I am verifying with one additional pair of temporary
> > stats (counters of successful opens) in the exit path of cifs_open and
> > cifs_close)
> > to make sure that those match what I have already verified that we are seeing
> > with smbstatus and the client side counters on number of successful posix_opens.
> 
> I am puzzled about the Samba 3.4 max files limit (I am seeing it at
> 1014 opens) and seems
> strange that dbench would open so many files, but with counters in
> cifs_open and cifs_close - I see 1014 more opens than closes (from the vfs)
> which matches what I see at the SMB level and what I see in Samba server.
> dbench 4 fails even faster.   This also fails on other OS (opensuse,
> Ubuntu etc.),
> but worked on Samba 3.0.28.  Is it possible that Samba 3.4 changed their
> max open file limit?
> 
> 

Doesn't 3.0.28 have broken POSIX open calls? That may account for the
difference. I can't be certain I was seeing the same failures you were
with dbench, but I never got a passing run until I applied that patch to
fix the reopen locking.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/