Re: [PATCH] CIFS: Prevent error log on spurious oplock break

2021-03-12 Thread Tom Talpey
On 3/12/2021 6:49 AM, Vincent Whitchurch wrote: On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 04:29:14PM +0100, Steve French wrote: On Tue, Mar 9, 2021, 07:42 Vincent Whitchurch via samba-technical mailto:samba-techni...@lists.samba.org>> wrote: Thank you for the suggestions. In my case, I've only received some

Re: [PATCH] CIFS: Prevent error log on spurious oplock break

2021-03-12 Thread Vincent Whitchurch
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 04:29:14PM +0100, Steve French wrote: > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021, 07:42 Vincent Whitchurch via samba-technical > mailto:samba-techni...@lists.samba.org>> > wrote: >> Thank you for the suggestions. In my case, I've only received some >> reports of this error being emitted very

Re: [PATCH] CIFS: Prevent error log on spurious oplock break

2021-03-09 Thread Vincent Whitchurch
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 01:05:11AM +0100, ronnie sahlberg wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 8:52 PM Shyam Prasad N via samba-technical > wrote: > > The reason for rejecting the request maybe a number of things like: > > corrupted request, stale request (for some old session), or for a > > wrong

Re: [PATCH] CIFS: Prevent error log on spurious oplock break

2021-03-09 Thread Aurélien Aptel
ronnie sahlberg writes: > Some thoughts I and Stever brainstormed about could be to change the code in > the > demiltiplex thread where we currently dump the packets that were "invalid" > to maybe: > * log once as VFS and then log any future ones as FYI > * log once as VFS and then only make

Re: [PATCH] CIFS: Prevent error log on spurious oplock break

2021-03-08 Thread ronnie sahlberg
On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 8:52 PM Shyam Prasad N via samba-technical wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > The reason for rejecting the request maybe a number of things like: > corrupted request, stale request (for some old session), or for a > wrong handle. > I don't think we should treat any of these cases

Re: [PATCH] CIFS: Prevent error log on spurious oplock break

2021-03-08 Thread Aurélien Aptel
Shyam Prasad N writes: > So I don't think we should be changing the logic here. I would tend to agree. > If SMB v1 had a different behaviour, we should check if that is as per > the protocol documentation. If not, change it. I think the main difference is that SMBv1 doesn't have the concept of

Re: [PATCH] CIFS: Prevent error log on spurious oplock break

2021-03-07 Thread Shyam Prasad N
Hi Vincent, The reason for rejecting the request maybe a number of things like: corrupted request, stale request (for some old session), or for a wrong handle. I don't think we should treat any of these cases as a success. Also, from the MS-SMB2 documentation: