On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:29:17 +0300 Pavel Shilovsky <piastryyy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Another problem with it will come with SMB2.1 leases. Let's predict > the situation: > 1) user1 mounts a remote share > 2) user2 mounts the same share with the same username and password. > > Both succeed on the same smb connection. Then: > 3) user1 opens a file and gets Lease for RWH > 4) user2 opens the same file and again gets Lease for RWH > > because a server thinks that it's the same client and the cache for it > is the same, but as far as we mounts if into separete directories we > have them as different inodes and different caches. It will be an > problem with a data coherency. So, in the case of SMB2.1 we should not > use existing smb connection (not tcp connection) at all, as I think. > > Your thoughts/comments, please? > It's probably a bug, but it an uncommon configuration and a bit on the pathological side. Trying to use different SMB connections from the same user over the same connection will probably confuse some servers. If you want cache coherency between separate mounts of the same data, then you probably need to consider moving CIFS to a shared superblock model like NFS has. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
