summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/source4/torture
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorSteven Danneman <steven.danneman@isilon.com>2009-11-30 17:05:27 -0800
committerSteven Danneman <steven.danneman@isilon.com>2009-12-02 17:28:52 -0800
commitad9c5a7b881bd28f408a178766a00098bab19157 (patch)
treed47e9a329db3a060e4443111276c8eeae1d423fb /source4/torture
parentdfbb92e2a1c3478c9b1263adcc4818afe2acd6f7 (diff)
downloadsamba-ad9c5a7b881bd28f408a178766a00098bab19157.tar.gz
samba-ad9c5a7b881bd28f408a178766a00098bab19157.tar.bz2
samba-ad9c5a7b881bd28f408a178766a00098bab19157.zip
s4/torture: add addition multiple lock tests
* test that 2 locks in a single LockAndX are transactional * test that 1 unlock and 1 lock in a single LockAndX are not transactional * test that SMB2 doesn't like mixed lock/unlock in a single PDU
Diffstat (limited to 'source4/torture')
-rw-r--r--source4/torture/raw/lock.c67
-rw-r--r--source4/torture/smb2/lock.c241
2 files changed, 279 insertions, 29 deletions
diff --git a/source4/torture/raw/lock.c b/source4/torture/raw/lock.c
index 77de1d8abe..27e37a0e49 100644
--- a/source4/torture/raw/lock.c
+++ b/source4/torture/raw/lock.c
@@ -1750,6 +1750,73 @@ static bool test_multiple_unlock(struct torture_context *tctx, struct smbcli_sta
status = smb_raw_lock(cli->tree, &io);
CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+ /* Test3: Request 2 locks, second will contend. What happens to the
+ * first? */
+ torture_comment(tctx, " request 2 locks, second one will contend. "
+ "Expect both to fail.\n");
+
+ /* Lock the second range */
+ io.lockx.in.ulock_cnt = 0;
+ io.lockx.in.lock_cnt = 1;
+ io.lockx.in.locks = &lock2;
+ status = smb_raw_lock(cli->tree, &io);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* Request both locks */
+ io.lockx.in.ulock_cnt = 0;
+ io.lockx.in.lock_cnt = 2;
+ io.lockx.in.locks = locks;
+
+ status = smb_raw_lock(cli->tree, &io);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_FILE_LOCK_CONFLICT);
+
+ /* First lock should be unlocked. */
+ io.lockx.in.ulock_cnt = 0;
+ io.lockx.in.lock_cnt = 1;
+ io.lockx.in.locks = &lock1;
+ status = smb_raw_lock(cli->tree, &io);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* cleanup */
+ io.lockx.in.ulock_cnt = 2;
+ io.lockx.in.lock_cnt = 0;
+ io.lockx.in.locks = locks;
+ status = smb_raw_lock(cli->tree, &io);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* Test4: Request unlock and lock. The lock contends, is the unlock
+ * then re-locked? */
+ torture_comment(tctx, " request unlock and lock, second one will "
+ "contend. Expect the unlock to succeed.\n");
+
+ /* Lock both ranges */
+ io.lockx.in.ulock_cnt = 0;
+ io.lockx.in.lock_cnt = 2;
+ io.lockx.in.locks = locks;
+ status = smb_raw_lock(cli->tree, &io);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* Attempt to unlock the first range and lock the second */
+ io.lockx.in.ulock_cnt = 1;
+ io.lockx.in.lock_cnt = 1;
+ io.lockx.in.locks = locks;
+ status = smb_raw_lock(cli->tree, &io);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_FILE_LOCK_CONFLICT);
+
+ /* The first lock should've been unlocked */
+ io.lockx.in.ulock_cnt = 0;
+ io.lockx.in.lock_cnt = 1;
+ io.lockx.in.locks = &lock1;
+ status = smb_raw_lock(cli->tree, &io);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* cleanup */
+ io.lockx.in.ulock_cnt = 2;
+ io.lockx.in.lock_cnt = 0;
+ io.lockx.in.locks = locks;
+ status = smb_raw_lock(cli->tree, &io);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
done:
smbcli_close(cli->tree, fnum1);
smb_raw_exit(cli->session);
diff --git a/source4/torture/smb2/lock.c b/source4/torture/smb2/lock.c
index 95b825e83e..ba97a54eae 100644
--- a/source4/torture/smb2/lock.c
+++ b/source4/torture/smb2/lock.c
@@ -1702,7 +1702,6 @@ static bool test_multiple_unlock(struct torture_context *torture,
uint8_t buf[200];
struct smb2_lock lck;
struct smb2_lock_element el[2];
- struct smb2_lock_element el0, el1;
const char *fname = BASEDIR "\\unlock_multiple.txt";
@@ -1723,41 +1722,37 @@ static bool test_multiple_unlock(struct torture_context *torture,
lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
lck.in.lock_sequence = 0x00000000;
lck.in.file.handle = h;
- el0.offset = 0;
- el0.length = 10;
- el0.reserved = 0x00000000;
- el1.offset = 10;
- el1.length = 10;
- el1.reserved = 0x00000000;
- el[0] = el0;
- el[1] = el1;
+ el[0].offset = 0;
+ el[0].length = 10;
+ el[0].reserved = 0x00000000;
+ el[1].offset = 10;
+ el[1].length = 10;
+ el[1].reserved = 0x00000000;
/* Test1: Acquire second lock, but not first. */
torture_comment(torture, " unlock 2 locks, first one not locked. "
"Expect no locks unlocked. \n");
lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
- el1.flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
- lck.in.locks = &el1;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[1];
status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
/* Try to unlock both locks */
lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
- el0.flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
- el1.flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
- el[0] = el0;
- el[1] = el1;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
lck.in.locks = el;
status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_RANGE_NOT_LOCKED);
/* Second lock should not be unlocked. */
lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
- el1.flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
- lck.in.locks = &el1;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[1];
status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
if (TARGET_IS_W2K8(torture)) {
CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
@@ -1770,8 +1765,8 @@ static bool test_multiple_unlock(struct torture_context *torture,
/* cleanup */
lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
- el1.flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
- lck.in.locks = &el1;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[1];
status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
@@ -1780,37 +1775,225 @@ static bool test_multiple_unlock(struct torture_context *torture,
"Expect first lock unlocked.\n");
lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
- el0.flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
- lck.in.locks = &el0;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[0];
status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
/* Try to unlock both locks */
lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
- el0.flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
- el1.flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
- el[0] = el0;
- el[1] = el1;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
lck.in.locks = el;
status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_RANGE_NOT_LOCKED);
/* First lock should be unlocked. */
lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
- el0.flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[0];
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* cleanup */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[0];
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* Test3: Request 2 locks, second will contend. What happens to the
+ * first? */
+ torture_comment(torture, " request 2 locks, second one will contend. "
+ "Expect both to fail.\n");
+
+ /* Lock the second range */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[1];
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* Request both locks */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
- lck.in.locks = &el0;
+ lck.in.locks = el;
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_LOCK_NOT_GRANTED);
+
+ /* First lock should be unlocked. */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[0];
status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
/* cleanup */
+ if (TARGET_IS_W2K8(torture)) {
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[0];
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+ torture_warning(torture, "Target has \"pretty please\" bug. "
+ "A contending lock request on the same handle "
+ "unlocks the lock.\n");
+ } else {
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ lck.in.locks = el;
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+ }
+
+ /* Test4: Request unlock and lock. The lock contends, is the unlock
+ * then relocked? SMB2 doesn't like the lock and unlock requests in the
+ * same packet. The unlock will succeed, but the lock will return
+ * INVALID_PARAMETER. This behavior is described in MS-SMB2
+ * 3.3.5.14.1 */
+ torture_comment(torture, " request unlock and lock, second one will "
+ "error. Expect the unlock to succeed.\n");
+
+ /* Lock both ranges */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ lck.in.locks = el;
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* Attempt to unlock the first range and lock the second. The lock
+ * request will error. */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ lck.in.locks = el;
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER);
+
+ /* The first lock should've been unlocked */
lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
- el0.flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
- lck.in.locks = &el0;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[0];
status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+ /* cleanup */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ lck.in.locks = el;
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* Test10: SMB2 only test. Request unlock and lock in same packet.
+ * Neither contend. SMB2 doesn't like lock and unlock requests in the
+ * same packet. The unlock will succeed, but the lock will return
+ * INVALID_PARAMETER. */
+ torture_comment(torture, " request unlock and lock. Unlock will "
+ "succeed, but lock will fail.\n");
+
+ /* Lock first range */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[0];
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* Attempt to unlock the first range and lock the second */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ lck.in.locks = el;
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER);
+
+ /* Neither lock should still be locked */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ lck.in.locks = el;
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* cleanup */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ lck.in.locks = el;
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* Test11: SMB2 only test. Request lock and unlock in same packet.
+ * Neither contend. SMB2 doesn't like lock and unlock requests in the
+ * same packet. The lock will succeed, the unlock will fail with
+ * INVALID_PARAMETER, and the lock will be unlocked before return. */
+ torture_comment(torture, " request lock and unlock. Both will "
+ "fail.\n");
+
+ /* Lock second range */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[1];
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ /* Attempt to lock the first range and unlock the second */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ lck.in.locks = el;
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER);
+
+ /* First range should be unlocked, second locked. */
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[0];
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE |
+ SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_FAIL_IMMEDIATELY;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[1];
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_LOCK_NOT_GRANTED);
+
+ /* cleanup */
+ if (TARGET_IS_W2K8(torture)) {
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0001;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ lck.in.locks = &el[0];
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+ torture_warning(torture, "Target has \"pretty please\" bug. "
+ "A contending lock request on the same handle "
+ "unlocks the lock.\n");
+ } else {
+ lck.in.lock_count = 0x0002;
+ el[0].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ el[1].flags = SMB2_LOCK_FLAG_UNLOCK;
+ lck.in.locks = el;
+ status = smb2_lock(tree, &lck);
+ CHECK_STATUS(status, NT_STATUS_OK);
+ }
+
done:
smb2_util_close(tree, h);
smb2_deltree(tree, BASEDIR);