3 THIS IS INCOMPLETE! I'M ONLY COMMITING IT IN ORDER TO SOLICIT COMMENTS
4 FROM A FEW PEOPLE. DON'T TAKE THIS AS THE FINAL VERSION YET.
7 Samba4 Programming Guide
8 ------------------------
10 The internals of Samba4 are quite different from previous versions of
11 Samba, so even if you are an experienced Samba developer please take
12 the time to read through this document.
14 This document will explain both the broad structure of Samba4, and
15 some of the common coding elements such as memory management and
22 In past versions of Samba we have basically let each programmer choose
23 their own programming style. Unfortunately the result has often been
24 that code that other members of the team find difficult to read. For
25 Samba version 4 I would like to standardise on a common coding style
26 to make the whole tree more readable. For those of you who are
27 horrified at the idea of having to learn a new style, I can assure you
28 that it isn't as painful as you might think. I was forced to adopt a
29 new style when I started working on the Linux kernel, and after some
30 initial pain found it quite easy.
32 That said, I don't want to invent a new style, instead I would like to
33 adopt the style used by the Linux kernel. It is a widely used style
34 with plenty of support tools available. See Documentation/CodingStyle
35 in the Linux source tree. This is the style that I have used to write
36 all of the core infrastructure for Samba4 and I think that we should
37 continue with that style.
39 I also think that we should most definately *not* adopt an automatic
40 reformatting system in cvs (or whatever other source code system we
41 end up using in the future). Such automatic formatters are, in my
42 experience, incredibly error prone and don't understand the necessary
43 exceptions. I don't mind if people use automated tools to reformat
44 their own code before they commit it, but please do not run such
45 automated tools on large slabs of existing code without being willing
46 to spend a *lot* of time hand checking the results.
48 Finally, I think that for code that is parsing or formatting protocol
49 packets the code layout should strongly reflect the packet
50 format. That means ordring the code so that it parses in the same
51 order as the packet is stored on the wire (where possible) and using
52 white space to align packet offsets so that a reader can immediately
53 map any line of the code to the corresponding place in the packet.
56 Static and Global Data
57 ----------------------
59 The basic rule is "avoid static and global data like the plague". What
60 do I mean by static data? The way to tell if you have static data in a
61 file is to use the "size" utility in Linux. For example if we run:
65 in Samba4 then you get the following:
67 text data bss dec hex filename
68 2015 0 0 2015 7df libcli/raw/clikrb5.o
69 202 0 0 202 ca libcli/raw/clioplock.o
70 35 0 0 35 23 libcli/raw/clirewrite.o
71 3891 0 0 3891 f33 libcli/raw/clisession.o
72 869 0 0 869 365 libcli/raw/clisocket.o
73 4962 0 0 4962 1362 libcli/raw/clispnego.o
74 1223 0 0 1223 4c7 libcli/raw/clitransport.o
75 2294 0 0 2294 8f6 libcli/raw/clitree.o
76 1081 0 0 1081 439 libcli/raw/raweas.o
77 6765 0 0 6765 1a6d libcli/raw/rawfile.o
78 6824 0 0 6824 1aa8 libcli/raw/rawfileinfo.o
79 2944 0 0 2944 b80 libcli/raw/rawfsinfo.o
80 541 0 0 541 21d libcli/raw/rawioctl.o
81 1728 0 0 1728 6c0 libcli/raw/rawnegotiate.o
82 723 0 0 723 2d3 libcli/raw/rawnotify.o
83 3779 0 0 3779 ec3 libcli/raw/rawreadwrite.o
84 6597 0 0 6597 19c5 libcli/raw/rawrequest.o
85 5580 0 0 5580 15cc libcli/raw/rawsearch.o
86 3034 0 0 3034 bda libcli/raw/rawsetfileinfo.o
87 5187 0 0 5187 1443 libcli/raw/rawtrans.o
88 2033 0 0 2033 7f1 libcli/raw/smb_signing.o
90 notice that the "data" and "bss" columns are all zero? That is
91 good. If there are any non-zero values in data or bss then that
92 indicates static data and is bad (as a rule of thumb).
94 Lets compare that result to the equivalent in Samba3:
96 text data bss dec hex filename
97 3978 0 0 3978 f8a libsmb/asn1.o
98 18963 0 288 19251 4b33 libsmb/cliconnect.o
99 2815 0 1024 3839 eff libsmb/clidgram.o
100 4038 0 0 4038 fc6 libsmb/clientgen.o
101 3337 664 256 4257 10a1 libsmb/clierror.o
102 10043 0 0 10043 273b libsmb/clifile.o
103 332 0 0 332 14c libsmb/clifsinfo.o
104 166 0 0 166 a6 libsmb/clikrb5.o
105 5212 0 0 5212 145c libsmb/clilist.o
106 1367 0 0 1367 557 libsmb/climessage.o
107 259 0 0 259 103 libsmb/clioplock.o
108 1584 0 0 1584 630 libsmb/cliprint.o
109 7565 0 256 7821 1e8d libsmb/cliquota.o
110 7694 0 0 7694 1e0e libsmb/clirap.o
111 27440 0 0 27440 6b30 libsmb/clirap2.o
112 2905 0 0 2905 b59 libsmb/clireadwrite.o
113 1698 0 0 1698 6a2 libsmb/clisecdesc.o
114 5517 0 0 5517 158d libsmb/clispnego.o
115 485 0 0 485 1e5 libsmb/clistr.o
116 8449 0 0 8449 2101 libsmb/clitrans.o
117 2053 0 4 2057 809 libsmb/conncache.o
118 3041 0 256 3297 ce1 libsmb/credentials.o
119 1261 0 1024 2285 8ed libsmb/doserr.o
120 14560 0 0 14560 38e0 libsmb/errormap.o
121 3645 0 0 3645 e3d libsmb/namecache.o
122 16815 0 8 16823 41b7 libsmb/namequery.o
123 1626 0 0 1626 65a libsmb/namequery_dc.o
124 14301 0 1076 15377 3c11 libsmb/nmblib.o
125 24516 0 2048 26564 67c4 libsmb/nterr.o
126 8661 0 8 8669 21dd libsmb/ntlmssp.o
127 3188 0 0 3188 c74 libsmb/ntlmssp_parse.o
128 4945 0 0 4945 1351 libsmb/ntlmssp_sign.o
129 1303 0 0 1303 517 libsmb/passchange.o
130 1221 0 0 1221 4c5 libsmb/pwd_cache.o
131 2475 0 4 2479 9af libsmb/samlogon_cache.o
132 10768 32 0 10800 2a30 libsmb/smb_signing.o
133 4524 0 16 4540 11bc libsmb/smbdes.o
134 5708 0 0 5708 164c libsmb/smbencrypt.o
135 7049 0 3072 10121 2789 libsmb/smberr.o
136 2995 0 0 2995 bb3 libsmb/spnego.o
137 3186 0 0 3186 c72 libsmb/trustdom_cache.o
138 1742 0 0 1742 6ce libsmb/trusts_util.o
139 918 0 28 946 3b2 libsmb/unexpected.o
141 notice all of the non-zero data and bss elements? Every bit of that
142 data is a bug waiting to happen.
144 Static data is evil as it has the following consequences:
145 - it makes code much less likely to be thread-safe
146 - it makes code much less likely to be recursion-safe
147 - it leads to subtle side effects when the same code is called from
150 Static data is particularly evil in library code (such as our internal
151 smb and rpc libraries). If you can get rid of all static data in
152 libraries then you can make some fairly strong guarantees about the
153 behaviour of functions in that library, which really helps.
155 Of course, it is possible to write code that uses static data and is
156 safe, it's just much harder to do that than just avoid static data in
157 the first place. We have been tripped up countless times by subtle
158 bugs in Samba due to the use of static data, so I think it is time to
159 start avoiding it in new code. Much of the core infrastructure of
160 Samba4 was specifically written to avoid static data, so I'm going to
161 be really annoyed if everyone starts adding lots of static data back
164 So, how do we avoid static data? The basic method is to use context
165 pointers. When reading the Samba4 code you will notice that just about
166 every function takes a pointer to a context structure as its first
167 argument. Any data that the function needs that isn't an explicit
168 argument to the function can be found by traversing that context.
170 Note that this includes all of the little caches that we have lying
171 all over the code in Samba3. I'm referring to the ones that generally
172 have a "static int initialised" and then some static string or integer
173 that remembers the last return value of the function. Get rid of them!
174 If you are *REALLY* absolutely completely certain that your personal
175 favourite mini-cache is needed then you should do it properly by
176 putting it into the appropriate context rather than doing it the lazy
177 way by putting it inside the target function. I would suggest however
178 that the vast majority of those little caches are useless - don't
179 stick it in unless you have really firm benchmarking results that show
180 that it is needed and helps by a significant amount.
182 Note that Samba4 is not yet completely clean of static data like
183 this. I've gotten the smbd/ directory down to 24 bytes of static data,
184 and libcli/raw/ down to zero. I've also gotten the ntvfs layer and all
185 backends down to just 8 bytes in ntvfs_base.c. The rest still needs
188 Also note that truly constant data is OK, and will not in fact show up
189 in the data and bss columns in "size" anyway (it will be included in
190 "text"). So you can have constant tables of protocol data.
196 Please see the separate document, talloc_guide.txt in this
197 directory. You _must_ read this if you want to program in Samba4.
202 One of the biggest changes in Samba4 is the universal use of interface
203 structures. Go take a look through include/smb_interfaces.h now to get
204 an idea of what I am talking about.
206 In Samba3 many of the core wire structures in the SMB protocol were
207 never explicitly defined in Samba. Instead, our parse and generation
208 functions just worked directly with wire buffers. The biggest problem
209 with this is that is tied our parse code with out "business logic"
210 much too closely, which meant the code got extremely confusing to
213 In Samba4 we have explicitly defined interface structures for
214 everything in the protocol. When we receive a buffer we always parse
215 it completely into one of these structures, then we pass a pointer to
216 that structure to a backend handler. What we must *not* do is make any
217 decisions about the data inside the parse functions. That is critical
218 as different backends will need different portions of the data. This
219 leads to a golden rule for Samba4:
221 "don't design interfaces that lose information"
223 In Samba3 our backends often received "condensed" versions of the
224 information sent from clients, but this inevitably meant that some
225 backends could not get at the data they needed to do what they wanted,
226 so from now on we should expose the backends to all of the available
227 information and let them choose which bits they want.
229 Ok, so now some of you will be thinking "this sounds just like our
230 msrpc code from Samba3", and while to some extent this is true there
231 are extremely important differences in the approach that are worth
234 In the Samba3 msrpc code we used explicit parse strucrures for all
235 msrpc functions. The problem is that we didn't just put all of the
236 real variables in these structures, we also put in all the artifacts
237 as well. A good example is the security descriptor strucrure that
238 looks like this in Samba3:
240 typedef struct security_descriptor_info
245 uint32 off_owner_sid;
256 The problem with this structure is all the off_* variables. Those are
257 not part of the interface, and do not appear in any real descriptions
258 of Microsoft security descriptors. They are parsing artifacts
259 generated by the IDL compiler that Microsoft use. That doesn't mean
260 they aren't needed on the wire - indeed they are as they tell the
261 parser where to find the following four variables, but they should
262 *NOT* be in the interface structure.
264 In Samba3 there were unwritten rules about which variables in a
265 strucrure a high level caller has to fill in and which ones are filled
266 in by the marshalling code. In Samba4 those rules are gone, because
267 the redundent artifact variables are gone. The high level caller just
268 sets up the real variables and the marshalling code worries about
269 generating the right offsets.
271 The same rule applies to strings. In many places in the SMB and MSRPC
272 protocols complex strings are used on the wire, with complex rules
273 about padding, format, alighment, termination etc. None of that
274 information is useful to a high level calling routine or to a backend
275 - its all just so much wire fluff. So, in Samba4 these strings are
276 just "char *" and are always in our internal multi-byte format (which
277 is usually UTF8). It is up to the parse functions to worry about
278 translating the format and getting the padding right.
280 The one exception to this is the use of the WIRE_STRING type, but that
281 has a very good justification in terms of regression testing. Go and
282 read the comment in smb_interfaces.h about that now.
284 So, here is another rule to code by. When writing an interface
285 structure think carefully about what variables in the structure can be
286 left out as they are redundent. If some length is effectively defined
287 twice on the wire then only put it once in the packet. If a length can
288 be inferred from a null termination then do that and leave the length
289 out of the structure completely. Don't put redundent stuff in
296 Samba4 has an asynchronous design. That affects *lots* of the code,
297 and the implications of the asynchronous design needs to be considered
298 just about everywhere.
300 The first aspect of the async design to look at is the SMB client
301 library. Lets take a look at the following three functions in
302 libcli/raw/rawfile.c:
304 struct cli_request *smb_raw_seek_send(struct cli_tree *tree, struct smb_seek *parms);
305 NTSTATUS smb_raw_seek_recv(struct cli_request *req, struct smb_seek *parms);
306 NTSTATUS smb_raw_seek(struct cli_tree *tree, struct smb_seek *parms);
308 Go and read them now then come back.
310 Ok, first notice there there are 3 separate functions, whereas the
311 equivalent code in Samba3 had just one. Also note that the 3rd
312 function is extremely simple - its just a wrapper around calling the
315 The three separate functions are needed because we need to be able to
316 generate SMB calls asynchronously. The first call, which for smb calls
317 is always called smb_raw_XXXX_send(), constructs and sends a SMB
318 request and returns a "struct cli_request" which acts as a handle for
319 the request. The caller is then free to do lots of other calls if it
320 wants to, then when it is ready it can call the smb_raw_XXX_recv()
321 function to receive the reply.
323 If all you want is a synchronous call then call the 3rd interface, the
324 one called smb_raw_XXXX(). That just calls the first two in order, and
325 blocks waiting for the reply.
327 But what if you want to be called when the reply comes in? Yes, thats
328 possible. You can do things like this:
330 struct cli_request *req;
332 req = smb_raw_XXX_send(tree, params);
334 req->async.fn = my_callback;
335 req->async.private = my_private_data;
337 then in your callback function you can call the smb_raw_XXXX_recv()
338 function to receive the reply. Your callback will receive the "req"
339 pointer, which you can use to retrieve your private data from
342 Then all you need to do is ensure that the main loop in the client
343 library gets called. You can either do that by polling the connection
344 using cli_transport_pending() and cli_request_receive_next() or you
345 can use transport->idle.func to setup an idle function handler to call
346 back to your main code. Either way, you can build a fully async
349 In order to support all of this we have to make sure that when we
350 write a piece of library code (SMB, MSRPC etc) that we build the
351 separate _send() and _recv() functions. It really is worth the effort.
353 Now about async in smbd, a much more complex topic.
355 The SMB protocol is inherently async. Some functions (such as change
356 notify) often don't return for hours, while hundreds of other
357 functions pass through the socket. Take a look at the RAW-MUX test in
358 the Samba4 smbtorture to see some really extreme examples of the sort
359 of async operations that Windows supports. I particularly like the
360 open/open/close sequence where the 2nd open (which conflicts with the
361 first) succeeds because the subsequent close is answered out of order.
363 In Samba3 we handled this stuff very badly. We had awful "pending
364 request" queues that allocated full 128k packet buffers, and even with
365 all that crap we got the semantics wrong. In Samba4 I intend to make
366 sure we get this stuff right.
368 So, how do we do this? We now have an async interface between smbd and
369 the NTVFS backends. Whenever smbd calls into a backend the backend has
370 an option of answer the request in a synchronous fashion if it wants
371 to just like in Samba3, but it also has the option of answering the
372 request asynchronously. The only backend that currently does this is
373 the CIFS backend, but I hope the other backends will soon do this to.
375 To make this work you need to do things like this in the backend:
377 req->control_flags |= REQ_CONTROL_ASYNC;
379 that tells smbd that the backend has elected to reply later rather
380 than replying immediately. The backend must *only* do this if
381 req->async.send_fn is not NULL. If send_fn is NULL then it means that
382 the smbd front end cannot handle this function being replied to in an
385 If the backend does this then it is up to the backend to call
386 req->async.send_fn() when it is ready to reply. It the meantime smbd
387 puts the call on hold and goes back to answering other requests on the
390 Inside smbd you will find that there is code to support this. The most
391 obvious change is that smbd splits each SMB reply function into two
392 parts - just like the client library has a _send() and _recv()
393 function, so smbd has a _send() function and the parse function for
396 As an example go and have a look at reply_getatr_send() and
397 reply_getatr() in smbd/reply.c. Read them? Good.
399 Notice that reply_getatr() sets up the req->async structure to contain
400 the send function. Thats how the backend gets to do an async reply, it
401 calls this function when it is ready. Also notice that reply_getatr()
402 only does the parsing of the request, and does not do the reply
403 generation. That is done by the _send() function.
405 The only missing piece in the Samba4 right now that prevents it being
406 fully async is that it currently does the low level socket calls (read
407 and write on sockets) in a blocking fashion. It does use select() to
408 make it somewhat async, but if a client were to send a partial packet
409 then delay before sending the rest then smbd would be stuck waiting
410 for the second half of the packet.
412 To fix this I plan on making the socket calls async as well, which
413 luckily will not involve any API changes in the core of smbd or the
414 library. It just involves a little bit of extra code in clitransport.c
415 and smbd/request.c. As a side effect I hope that this will also reduce
416 the average number of system calls required to answer a request, so we
417 may see a performance improvement.
423 One of the most noticeable changes in Samba4 is the introduction of
424 the NTVFS layer. This provided the initial motivation for the design
425 of Samba4 and in many ways lies at the heart of the design.
427 In Samba3 the main file serving process (smbd) combined the handling
428 of the SMB protocol with the mapping to POSIX semantics in the same
429 code. If you look in smbd/reply.c in Samba3 you see numerous places
430 where POSIX assumptions are mixed tightly with SMB parsing code. We
431 did have a VFS layer in Samba3, but it was a POSIX-like VFS layer, so
432 no matter how you wrote a plugin you could not bypass the POSIX
433 mapping decisions that had already been made before the VFS layer was
436 In Samba4 things are quite different. All SMB parsing is performed in
437 the smbd front end, then fully parsed requests are passed to the NTVFS
438 backend. That backend makes any semantic mapping decisions and fills
439 in the 'out' portion of the request. The front end is then responsible
440 for putting those results into wire format and sending them to the
443 Lets have a look at one of those request structures. Go and read the
444 definition of "union smb_write" and "enum write_level" in
445 include/smb_interfaces.h. (no, don't just skip reading it, really go
446 and read it. Yes, that means you!).
448 Notice the union? That's how Samba4 allows a single NTVFS backend
449 interface to handle the several different ways of doing a write
450 operation in the SMB protocol. Now lets look at one section of that
453 /* SMBwriteX interface */
455 enum write_level level;
471 see the "in" and "out" sections? The "in" section is for parameters
472 that the SMB client sends on the wire as part of the request. The smbd
473 front end parse code parses the wire request and fills in all those
474 parameters. It then calls the NTVFS interface which looks like this:
476 NTSTATUS (*write)(struct request_context *req, union smb_write *io);
478 and the NTVFS backend does the write request. The backend then fills
479 in the "out" section of the writex structure and gives the union back
480 to the front end (either by returning, or if done in an async fashion
481 then by calling the async send function. See the async discussion
482 elsewhere in this document).
484 The NTVFS backend knows which particular function is being requested
485 by looking at io->generic.level. Notice that this enum is also
486 repeated inside each of the sub-structures in the union, so the
487 backend could just as easily look at io->writex.level and would get
490 Notice also that some levels (such as splwrite) don't have an "out"
491 section. This happens because there is no return value apart from a
492 status code from those SMB calls.
494 So what about status codes? The status code is returned directly by
495 the backend NTVFS interface when the call is performed
496 synchronously. When performed asynchronously then the status code is
497 put into req->async.status before the req->async.send_fn() callback is
500 Currently the most complete NTVFS backend is the CIFS backend. I don't
501 expect this backend will be used much in production, but it does
502 provide the ideal test case for our NTVFS design. As it offers the
503 full capabilities that are possible with a CIFS server we can be sure
504 that we don't have any gaping holes in our APIs, and that the front
505 end code is flexible enough to handle any advances in the NT style
506 feature sets of Unix filesystems that make come along.
512 In Samba3 we supported just one process model. It just so happens that
513 the process model that Samba3 supported is the "right" one for most
514 users, but there are situations where this model wasn't ideal.
516 In Samba4 you can choose the smbd process model on the smbd command
520 DCERPC binding strings
521 ----------------------
523 When connecting to a dcerpc service you need to specify a binding
528 TRANSPORT:host[flags]
530 where TRANSPORT is either ncacn_np for SMB or ncacn_ip_tcp for RPC/TCP
532 "host" is an IP or hostname or netbios name. If the binding string
533 identifies the server side of an endpoint, "host" may be an empty
536 "flags" can include a SMB pipe name if using the ncacn_np transport or
537 a TCP port number if using the ncacn_ip_tcp transport, otherwise they
538 will be auto-determined.
540 other recognised flags are:
542 sign : enable ntlmssp signing
543 seal : enable ntlmssp sealing
544 connect : enable rpc connect level auth (auth, but no sign or seal)
545 validate: enable the NDR validator
546 print: enable debugging of the packets
547 bigendian: use bigendian RPC
548 padcheck: check reply data for non-zero pad bytes
551 For example, these all connect to the samr pipe:
554 ncacn_np:myserver[samr]
555 ncacn_np:myserver[\pipe\samr]
556 ncacn_np:myserver[/pipe/samr]
557 ncacn_np:myserver[samr,sign,print]
558 ncacn_np:myserver[\pipe\samr,sign,seal,bigendian]
559 ncacn_np:myserver[/pipe/samr,seal,validate]
561 ncacn_np:[/pipe/samr]
563 ncacn_ip_tcp:myserver
564 ncacn_ip_tcp:myserver[1024]
565 ncacn_ip_tcp:myserver[1024,sign,seal]
568 IDEA: Maybe extend UNC names like this?
570 smbclient //server/share
571 smbclient //server/share[sign,seal,spnego]
575 The various handles that are used in the RPC servers should be created and
576 fetch using the dcesrv_handle_* functions.
578 Use dcesrv_handle_new(struct dcesrv_connection *, uint8 handle_type) to obtain
579 a new handle of the specified type. Handle types are unique within each
582 The handle can later be fetched again using
583 struct dcesrv_handle *dcesrv_handle_fetch(struct dcesrv_connection *dce_conn, struct policy_handle *p, uint8 handle_type)
584 and destroyed by dcesrv_handle_destroy(struct dcesrv_handle *).
586 User data should be stored in the 'data' member of the dcesrv_handle struct.
596 - command line handling
605 don't zero structures! avoid ZERO_STRUCT() and talloc_zero()
608 GMT vs TZ in printout of QFILEINFO timezones
610 put in full UNC path in tconx
612 test timezone handling by using a server in different zone from client
614 do {} while (0) system
616 NT_STATUS_IS_OK() is NOT the opposite of NT_STATUS_IS_ERR()
618 need to implement secondary parts of trans2 and nttrans in server and
621 document access_mask in openx reply
623 check all capabilities and flag1, flag2 fields (eg. EAs)
625 large files -> pass thru levels
627 setpathinfo is very fussy about null termination of the file name
629 the overwrite flag doesn't seem to work on setpathinfo RENAME_INFORMATION
631 END_OF_FILE_INFORMATION and ALLOCATION_INFORMATION don't seem to work
634 on w2k3 setpathinfo DISPOSITION_INFORMATION fails, but does have an
635 effect. It leaves the file with SHARING_VIOLATION.
637 on w2k3 trans2 setpathinfo with any invalid low numbered level causes
638 the file to get into a state where DELETE_PENDING is reported, and the
639 file cannot be deleted until you reboot
641 trans2 qpathinfo doesn't see the delete_pending flag correctly, but
644 get rid of pstring, fstring, strtok
646 add programming documentation note about lp_set_cmdline()
648 need to add a wct checking function in all client parsing code,
649 similar to REQ_CHECK_WCT()
651 need to make sure that NTTIME is a round number of seconds when
652 converted from time_t
654 not using a zero next offset in SMB_FILE_STREAM_INFORMATION for last
655 entry causes explorer exception under win2000
658 if the server sets the session key the same for a second SMB socket as
659 an initial socket then the client will not re-authenticate, it will go
660 straight to a tconx, skipping session setup and will use all the
661 existing parameters! This allows two sockets with the same keys!?
664 removed blocking lock code, we now queue the whole request the same as
665 we queue any other pending request. This allows for things like a
666 close() while a pending blocking lock is being processed to operate
669 disabled change notify code
679 client library and test code
680 ----------------------------
682 convert client library to new structure
683 get smbtorture working
684 get smbclient working
685 expand client library for all requests
686 write per-request test suite
687 gentest randomised test suite
688 separate client code as a library for non-Samba use
692 add remaining core SMB requests
696 fix auth models (share, server, rpc)
697 get net command working
698 connect CIFS backend to server level auth
701 reconnect printing code
702 restore removed smbd options
703 add smb.conf macro substitution code
704 add async backend notification
705 add generic timer event mechanism
711 new server models (break 1-1)
712 test clustered models
713 add fulcrum statistics gathering
726 - store all config in config.ldb
728 - load from smb.conf if modtime changes
730 - dump full system config with ldbsearch
732 - will need the ability to form a ldif difference file
734 - advanced web admin via a web ldb editor
736 - normal web admin via web forms -> ldif
738 - config.ldb will replace smb.conf, secrets.tdb, shares.tdb etc
740 - subsystems in smbd will load config parameters for a share
741 using ldbsearch at tconx time
743 - need a loadparm equivalent module that provides parameter defaults
745 - start smbd like this: "smbd -C tdb://etc/samba/config.ldb" or
746 "smbd -C ldapi://var/run/ldapi"
748 - write a tool that generates a template ldap schema from an existing
751 - no need to HUP smbd to reload config
753 - how to handle configuration comments? same problem as SWAT
757 add a test case for last_entry_offset in trans2 find interfaces
760 no 137 resolution not possible
761 should not fallback to anon when pass supplied
762 should check pass-thu cap bit, and skip lots of tests
763 possibly allow the test suite to say "allow oversized replies" for
764 trans2 and other calls
765 handle servers that don't have the setattre call in torture
766 add max file coponent length test and max path len test
768 case-insenstive idea:
769 all filenames on disk lowercase
770 real case in extended attribute
771 keep cache of what dirs are all lowercase
772 when searching for name, don't search if dir is definately all lowercase
773 when creating file, use dnotify to tell if someone else creates at
777 make mangle cache dynamic size
778 fill during a dir scan
780 destroy cache after 30 sec
781 destroy if a 2nd dir scan happens on same dir
git.samba.org / samba.git / blob