Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 03 10月, 2018 1 次提交
    • A
      smb2: fix missing files in root share directory listing · 0595751f
      由 Aurelien Aptel 提交于 
      When mounting a Windows share that is the root of a drive (eg. C$)
the server does not return . and .. directory entries. This results in
the smb2 code path erroneously skipping the 2 first entries.

Pseudo-code of the readdir() code path:

cifs_readdir(struct file, struct dir_context)
    initiate_cifs_search            <-- if no reponse cached yet
        server->ops->query_dir_first

    dir_emit_dots
        dir_emit                    <-- adds "." and ".." if we're at pos=0

    find_cifs_entry
        initiate_cifs_search        <-- if pos < start of current response
                                         (restart search)
        server->ops->query_dir_next <-- if pos > end of current response
                                         (fetch next search res)

    for(...)                        <-- loops over cur response entries
                                          starting at pos
        cifs_filldir                <-- skip . and .., emit entry
            cifs_fill_dirent
            dir_emit
	pos++

A) dir_emit_dots() always adds . & ..
   and sets the current dir pos to 2 (0 and 1 are done).

Therefore we always want the index_to_find to be 2 regardless of if
the response has . and ..

B) smb1 code initializes index_of_last_entry with a +2 offset

  in cifssmb.c CIFSFindFirst():
		psrch_inf->index_of_last_entry = 2 /* skip . and .. */ +
			psrch_inf->entries_in_buffer;

Later in find_cifs_entry() we want to find the next dir entry at pos=2
as a result of (A)

	first_entry_in_buffer = cfile->srch_inf.index_of_last_entry -
					cfile->srch_inf.entries_in_buffer;

This var is the dir pos that the first entry in the buffer will
have therefore it must be 2 in the first call.

If we don't offset index_of_last_entry by 2 (like in (B)),
first_entry_in_buffer=0 but we were instructed to get pos=2 so this
code in find_cifs_entry() skips the 2 first which is ok for non-root
shares, as it skips . and .. from the response but is not ok for root
shares where the 2 first are actual files

		pos_in_buf = index_to_find - first_entry_in_buffer;
                // pos_in_buf=2
		// we skip 2 first response entries :(
		for (i = 0; (i < (pos_in_buf)) && (cur_ent != NULL); i++) {
			/* go entry by entry figuring out which is first */
			cur_ent = nxt_dir_entry(cur_ent, end_of_smb,
						cfile->srch_inf.info_level);
		}

C) cifs_filldir() skips . and .. so we can safely ignore them for now.

Sample program:

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
	const char *path = argc >= 2 ? argv[1] : ".";
	DIR *dh;
	struct dirent *de;

	printf("listing path <%s>\n", path);
	dh = opendir(path);
	if (!dh) {
		printf("opendir error %d\n", errno);
		return 1;
	}

	while (1) {
		de = readdir(dh);
		if (!de) {
			if (errno) {
				printf("readdir error %d\n", errno);
				return 1;
			}
			printf("end of listing\n");
			break;
		}
		printf("off=%lu <%s>\n", de->d_off, de->d_name);
	}

	return 0;
}

Before the fix with SMB1 on root shares:

<.>            off=1
<..>           off=2
<$Recycle.Bin> off=3
<bootmgr>      off=4

and on non-root shares:

<.>    off=1
<..>   off=4  <-- after adding .., the offsets jumps to +2 because
<2536> off=5       we skipped . and .. from response buffer (C)
<411>  off=6       but still incremented pos
<file> off=7
<fsx>  off=8

Therefore the fix for smb2 is to mimic smb1 behaviour and offset the
index_of_last_entry by 2.

Test results comparing smb1 and smb2 before/after the fix on root
share, non-root shares and on large directories (ie. multi-response
dir listing):

PRE FIX
=======
pre-1-root VS pre-2-root:
        ERR pre-2-root is missing [bootmgr, $Recycle.Bin]
pre-1-nonroot VS pre-2-nonroot:
        OK~ same files, same order, different offsets
pre-1-nonroot-large VS pre-2-nonroot-large:
        OK~ same files, same order, different offsets

POST FIX
========
post-1-root VS post-2-root:
        OK same files, same order, same offsets
post-1-nonroot VS post-2-nonroot:
        OK same files, same order, same offsets
post-1-nonroot-large VS post-2-nonroot-large:
        OK same files, same order, same offsets

REGRESSION?
===========
pre-1-root VS post-1-root:
        OK same files, same order, same offsets
pre-1-nonroot VS post-1-nonroot:
        OK same files, same order, same offsets

BugLink: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13107Signed-off-by: NAurelien Aptel <aaptel@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: NPaulo Alcantara <palcantara@suse.deR>
Reviewed-by: NRonnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NSteve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
CC: Stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
      0595751f
  3. 02 10月, 2018 5 次提交
  5. 01 10月, 2018 3 次提交
  7. 30 9月, 2018 8 次提交
  9. 29 9月, 2018 12 次提交
  11. 28 9月, 2018 11 次提交