On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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> > If there is a way an smb connection would remain inspite of all set up sessions gone, first_time will not work. But should is_first_ses_reconnect traverse the list under a lock? -- 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
