On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:04:24 -0500 Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Right. I'm just not sure why we need a separate flag attached to the > > server struct for this. Why was the "first_time" mechanism not good > > enough here? I see no reason why that wouldn't have worked for NTLMSSP > > too. > > Jeff, I will investigate but at the first glance, it looks like > first_ses is per smb session > and not smb connection, not sure if that would be good enough for ntlmssp. > first_time is set by is_first_ses_reconnect(). The comment on that function says: * Checks if this is the first smb session to be reconnected after * the socket has been reestablished (so we know whether to use vc 0). * Called while holding the cifs_tcp_ses_lock, so do not block ...which isn't entirely true, since this works even when there hasn't been a reconnect. It just walks the list of sessions on a socket and sees if any of them are already established (that is, need_reconnect is false). So there is nominally a bug here -- sesInfoAlloc probably should set needs_reconnect to true. But since cifs_get_smb_ses doesn't stick the session on the server's list until after the session setup succeeds the first time, it doesn't really cause any problems. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
