Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1997-11,: SMB Report

# SMB Report

Steven N. Hirsch (shirsch@ibm.net)
Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:24:32 -0500 (EST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Bill Hawes: "Re: SMB oddness (patch attached)"
- Previous message: Steven N. Hirsch: "Re: SMB oddness (patch attached)"

Bill,

I tried the smbfs patch you posted today. It did cure the problem on
first write operation after WfW starts, with the expected log entry:

Nov 22 19:13:41 cy kernel: smb_newconn: server not locked, count=1
Nov 22 19:13:41 cy kernel: smb_offerconn: server not locked, count=1
Nov 22 19:13:41 cy kernel: smb_offerconn: state valid, pid=317
Nov 22 19:13:51 cy kernel: smb_create: fileid 0??
Nov 22 19:14:30 cy kernel: smb_request_ok: rcls=1, err=18 mapped to 0
Nov 22 19:14:42 cy kernel: smb_errno: class ERRDOS, code 50 from command 9

No error messages from the application.

*****************************************************

Odd behavior with both NT Workstation 4.0 (alpha) and WfW:

There seems to be a problem with the client not becoming aware of newly
added files on directory scans:

- Create a file on the server side:

C:\>echo > wintest

and it shows up when listed there (naturally).

- At the same time, the client is logged to the same directory. It does
not show "wintest" on a mass directory lookup:

Script started on Sat Nov 22 19:45:49 1997

(hirsch@cy) ~ : cd /tmp/smb/TEMP

(hirsch@cy) /tmp/smb/TEMP : dir
total 5
drwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 512 Oct 19 1939 MSE000/
-rwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 3650 Oct 28 1905 msoF.tmp*

(hirsch@cy) /tmp/smb/TEMP : dir
total 5
drwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 512 Oct 19 1939 MSE000/
-rwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 3650 Oct 28 1905 msoF.tmp*

(hirsch@cy) /tmp/smb/TEMP : ls dir wintest
-rwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 13 Jan 25 1955 wintest*

(hirsch@cy) /tmp/smb/TEMP : dir wintest
-rwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 13 Jan 25 1955 wintest*

^^^^^^^^^^^^
But, note that it does show up when specifically stat-ed.

Back to directory operations:

(hirsch@cy) /tmp/smb/TEMP : dir
total 5
drwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 512 Oct 19 1939 MSE000/
-rwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 3650 Oct 28 1905 msoF.tmp*

(hirsch@cy) /tmp/smb/TEMP : cd

Finally, after I cd back to home and list from there:

(hirsch@cy) ~ : dir /tmp/smb/TEMP
total 6
drwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 512 Oct 19 1939 MSE000/
-rwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 3650 Oct 28 1905 msoF.tmp*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 13 Jan 25 1955 wintest*

(hirsch@cy) ~ : dir /tmp/smb/TEMP
total 6
drwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 512 Oct 19 1939 MSE000/
-rwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 3650 Oct 28 1905 msoF.tmp*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 hirsch system 13 Jan 25 1955 wintest*

(hirsch@cy) ~ : exit

Script done on Sat Nov 22 19:47:00 1997

Strange, eh? WfW behaves the same way; the file is not detected until you
cd out of the mount point and try an ls from there. From that point on,
it shows up fine from all points.

**************************************************

Timestamps & NT Workstation 4.0 Shares:

You will note that the file timestamps above are bizarre. I tried to
quantify what is going on, but the biases between machines are not even
repeatable, much less quantifiable <g>.

Create a file on the NT server, and it shows as Nov 22, 1997.

List it from the client? It's Apr 5, 2012.

$ touch /tmp/smb/TEMP/wintest

On the client it shows as Feb 26, 1979.

On the server it is correct; or Nov 22, 1997.

$ touch /tmp/linux1

$ cp /tmp/linux1 /tmp/smb/TEMP

From the client this shows up as Apr 12, 2015.

$ cp /tmp/linux1 /tmp/smb/TEMP

Do the same thing again. The copied file now shows Jan 29, 1926!

As you can see, the offsets are random.

****************************************************************

Timestamps & WfW 3.11 Shares:

Everything works as you'd expect, except for the fact that Unix files
copied to the share display with the date they were moved there. I would
much prefer it if they'd appear with their Unix mtime after copying.

At one point, smbfs did work that way. Was there a conscious decision to
alter the semantics?

Steve

- Next message: Bill Hawes: "Re: SMB oddness (patch attached)"
- Previous message: Steven N. Hirsch: "Re: SMB oddness (patch attached)"