The branch, v3-2-test has been updated via a0e1d8ac4dd9121312fd66ecb2e2942513df5a4b (commit) via fd0b60a9e000f969cf99a8d670080cc7a52d97d8 (commit) from 47eb2e8fa858d9f12637eb9a10466271335f61aa (commit)
http://gitweb.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=shortlog;h=v3-2-test - Log ----------------------------------------------------------------- commit a0e1d8ac4dd9121312fd66ecb2e2942513df5a4b Author: Jeremy Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue May 20 14:18:58 2008 -0700 Convert in_transaction to a bool. Add the same fix Volker used for tdb_traverse() to tdb_traverse_read(). Jeremy. commit fd0b60a9e000f969cf99a8d670080cc7a52d97d8 Author: Volker Lendecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue May 20 21:54:36 2008 +0200 Fix nesting tdb_traverse in a transaction Calling tdb_traverse inside a transaction led to the transaction lock being held indefinitely. This was caused by the tdb_transaction_lock/unlock inside tdb_traverse: The transaction code holds the global lock at offset TRANSACTION_LOCK. The call to tdb_transaction_lock does nothing because the transaction_lock is already being held. tdb_transaction_unlock inside tdb_wrap resets tdb->have_transaction_lock but does not release the kernel-level fcntl lock. transaction_commit later on does not release that fcntl lock either, because tdb->have_transaction_lock was already reset by tdb_transaction(). This patch does fix that problem for me. An alternative would be to make tdb->have_transaction_lock a counter that can cope with proper nesting, maybe in other places as well. Volker ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary of changes: source/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------ 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) Changeset truncated at 500 lines: diff --git a/source/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c b/source/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c index 07b0c23..69c81e6 100644 --- a/source/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c +++ b/source/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c @@ -204,18 +204,23 @@ int tdb_traverse_read(struct tdb_context *tdb, { struct tdb_traverse_lock tl = { NULL, 0, 0, F_RDLCK }; int ret; + bool in_transaction = (tdb->transaction != NULL); /* we need to get a read lock on the transaction lock here to cope with the lock ordering semantics of solaris10 */ - if (tdb_transaction_lock(tdb, F_RDLCK)) { - return -1; + if (!in_transaction) { + if (tdb_transaction_lock(tdb, F_RDLCK)) { + return -1; + } } tdb->traverse_read++; ret = tdb_traverse_internal(tdb, fn, private_data, &tl); tdb->traverse_read--; - tdb_transaction_unlock(tdb); + if (!in_transaction) { + tdb_transaction_unlock(tdb); + } return ret; } @@ -232,20 +237,25 @@ int tdb_traverse(struct tdb_context *tdb, { struct tdb_traverse_lock tl = { NULL, 0, 0, F_WRLCK }; int ret; + bool in_transaction = (tdb->transaction != NULL); if (tdb->read_only || tdb->traverse_read) { return tdb_traverse_read(tdb, fn, private_data); } - if (tdb_transaction_lock(tdb, F_WRLCK)) { - return -1; + if (!in_transaction) { + if (tdb_transaction_lock(tdb, F_WRLCK)) { + return -1; + } } tdb->traverse_write++; ret = tdb_traverse_internal(tdb, fn, private_data, &tl); tdb->traverse_write--; - tdb_transaction_unlock(tdb); + if (!in_transaction) { + tdb_transaction_unlock(tdb); + } return ret; } -- Samba Shared Repository