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 ========================
12 The internals of Samba4 are quite different from previous versions of
13 Samba, so even if you are an experienced Samba developer please take
14 the time to read through this document.
16 This document will explain both the broad structure of Samba4, and
17 some of the common coding elements such as memory management and
24 In past versions of Samba we have basically let each programmer choose
25 their own programming style. Unfortunately the result has often been
26 that code that other members of the team find difficult to read. For
27 Samba version 4 I would like to standardise on a common coding style
28 to make the whole tree more readable. For those of you who are
29 horrified at the idea of having to learn a new style, I can assure you
30 that it isn't as painful as you might think. I was forced to adopt a
31 new style when I started working on the Linux kernel, and after some
32 initial pain found it quite easy.
34 That said, I don't want to invent a new style, instead I would like to
35 adopt the style used by the Linux kernel. It is a widely used style
36 with plenty of support tools available. See Documentation/CodingStyle
37 in the Linux source tree. This is the style that I have used to write
38 all of the core infrastructure for Samba4 and I think that we should
39 continue with that style.
41 I also think that we should most definately *not* adopt an automatic
42 reformatting system in cvs (or whatever other source code system we
43 end up using in the future). Such automatic formatters are, in my
44 experience, incredibly error prone and don't understand the necessary
45 exceptions. I don't mind if people use automated tools to reformat
46 their own code before they commit it, but please do not run such
47 automated tools on large slabs of existing code without being willing
48 to spend a *lot* of time hand checking the results.
50 Finally, I think that for code that is parsing or formatting protocol
51 packets the code layout should strongly reflect the packet
52 format. That means ordring the code so that it parses in the same
53 order as the packet is stored on the wire (where possible) and using
54 white space to align packet offsets so that a reader can immediately
55 map any line of the code to the corresponding place in the packet.
58 Static and Global Data
59 ----------------------
61 The basic rule is "avoid static and global data like the plague". What
62 do I mean by static data? The way to tell if you have static data in a
63 file is to use the "size" utility in Linux. For example if we run::
67 in Samba4 then you get the following::
69 text data bss dec hex filename
70 2015 0 0 2015 7df libcli/raw/clikrb5.o
71 202 0 0 202 ca libcli/raw/clioplock.o
72 35 0 0 35 23 libcli/raw/clirewrite.o
73 3891 0 0 3891 f33 libcli/raw/clisession.o
74 869 0 0 869 365 libcli/raw/clisocket.o
75 4962 0 0 4962 1362 libcli/raw/clispnego.o
76 1223 0 0 1223 4c7 libcli/raw/clitransport.o
77 2294 0 0 2294 8f6 libcli/raw/clitree.o
78 1081 0 0 1081 439 libcli/raw/raweas.o
79 6765 0 0 6765 1a6d libcli/raw/rawfile.o
80 6824 0 0 6824 1aa8 libcli/raw/rawfileinfo.o
81 2944 0 0 2944 b80 libcli/raw/rawfsinfo.o
82 541 0 0 541 21d libcli/raw/rawioctl.o
83 1728 0 0 1728 6c0 libcli/raw/rawnegotiate.o
84 723 0 0 723 2d3 libcli/raw/rawnotify.o
85 3779 0 0 3779 ec3 libcli/raw/rawreadwrite.o
86 6597 0 0 6597 19c5 libcli/raw/rawrequest.o
87 5580 0 0 5580 15cc libcli/raw/rawsearch.o
88 3034 0 0 3034 bda libcli/raw/rawsetfileinfo.o
89 5187 0 0 5187 1443 libcli/raw/rawtrans.o
90 2033 0 0 2033 7f1 libcli/raw/smb_signing.o
92 notice that the "data" and "bss" columns are all zero? That is
93 good. If there are any non-zero values in data or bss then that
94 indicates static data and is bad (as a rule of thumb).
96 Lets compare that result to the equivalent in Samba3::
98 text data bss dec hex filename
99 3978 0 0 3978 f8a libsmb/asn1.o
100 18963 0 288 19251 4b33 libsmb/cliconnect.o
101 2815 0 1024 3839 eff libsmb/clidgram.o
102 4038 0 0 4038 fc6 libsmb/clientgen.o
103 3337 664 256 4257 10a1 libsmb/clierror.o
104 10043 0 0 10043 273b libsmb/clifile.o
105 332 0 0 332 14c libsmb/clifsinfo.o
106 166 0 0 166 a6 libsmb/clikrb5.o
107 5212 0 0 5212 145c libsmb/clilist.o
108 1367 0 0 1367 557 libsmb/climessage.o
109 259 0 0 259 103 libsmb/clioplock.o
110 1584 0 0 1584 630 libsmb/cliprint.o
111 7565 0 256 7821 1e8d libsmb/cliquota.o
112 7694 0 0 7694 1e0e libsmb/clirap.o
113 27440 0 0 27440 6b30 libsmb/clirap2.o
114 2905 0 0 2905 b59 libsmb/clireadwrite.o
115 1698 0 0 1698 6a2 libsmb/clisecdesc.o
116 5517 0 0 5517 158d libsmb/clispnego.o
117 485 0 0 485 1e5 libsmb/clistr.o
118 8449 0 0 8449 2101 libsmb/clitrans.o
119 2053 0 4 2057 809 libsmb/conncache.o
120 3041 0 256 3297 ce1 libsmb/credentials.o
121 1261 0 1024 2285 8ed libsmb/doserr.o
122 14560 0 0 14560 38e0 libsmb/errormap.o
123 3645 0 0 3645 e3d libsmb/namecache.o
124 16815 0 8 16823 41b7 libsmb/namequery.o
125 1626 0 0 1626 65a libsmb/namequery_dc.o
126 14301 0 1076 15377 3c11 libsmb/nmblib.o
127 24516 0 2048 26564 67c4 libsmb/nterr.o
128 8661 0 8 8669 21dd libsmb/ntlmssp.o
129 3188 0 0 3188 c74 libsmb/ntlmssp_parse.o
130 4945 0 0 4945 1351 libsmb/ntlmssp_sign.o
131 1303 0 0 1303 517 libsmb/passchange.o
132 1221 0 0 1221 4c5 libsmb/pwd_cache.o
133 2475 0 4 2479 9af libsmb/samlogon_cache.o
134 10768 32 0 10800 2a30 libsmb/smb_signing.o
135 4524 0 16 4540 11bc libsmb/smbdes.o
136 5708 0 0 5708 164c libsmb/smbencrypt.o
137 7049 0 3072 10121 2789 libsmb/smberr.o
138 2995 0 0 2995 bb3 libsmb/spnego.o
139 3186 0 0 3186 c72 libsmb/trustdom_cache.o
140 1742 0 0 1742 6ce libsmb/trusts_util.o
141 918 0 28 946 3b2 libsmb/unexpected.o
143 notice all of the non-zero data and bss elements? Every bit of that
144 data is a bug waiting to happen.
146 Static data is evil as it has the following consequences:
147 - it makes code much less likely to be thread-safe
148 - it makes code much less likely to be recursion-safe
149 - it leads to subtle side effects when the same code is called from multiple places
150 - doesn't play well with shared libraries or plugins
152 Static data is particularly evil in library code (such as our internal
153 smb and rpc libraries). If you can get rid of all static data in
154 libraries then you can make some fairly strong guarantees about the
155 behaviour of functions in that library, which really helps.
157 Of course, it is possible to write code that uses static data and is
158 safe, it's just much harder to do that than just avoid static data in
159 the first place. We have been tripped up countless times by subtle
160 bugs in Samba due to the use of static data, so I think it is time to
161 start avoiding it in new code. Much of the core infrastructure of
162 Samba4 was specifically written to avoid static data, so I'm going to
163 be really annoyed if everyone starts adding lots of static data back
166 So, how do we avoid static data? The basic method is to use context
167 pointers. When reading the Samba4 code you will notice that just about
168 every function takes a pointer to a context structure as its first
169 argument. Any data that the function needs that isn't an explicit
170 argument to the function can be found by traversing that context.
172 Note that this includes all of the little caches that we have lying
173 all over the code in Samba3. I'm referring to the ones that generally
174 have a "static int initialised" and then some static string or integer
175 that remembers the last return value of the function. Get rid of them!
176 If you are *REALLY* absolutely completely certain that your personal
177 favourite mini-cache is needed then you should do it properly by
178 putting it into the appropriate context rather than doing it the lazy
179 way by putting it inside the target function. I would suggest however
180 that the vast majority of those little caches are useless - don't
181 stick it in unless you have really firm benchmarking results that show
182 that it is needed and helps by a significant amount.
184 Note that Samba4 is not yet completely clean of static data like
185 this. I've gotten the smbd/ directory down to 24 bytes of static data,
186 and libcli/raw/ down to zero. I've also gotten the ntvfs layer and all
187 backends down to just 8 bytes in ntvfs_base.c. The rest still needs
190 Also note that truly constant data is OK, and will not in fact show up
191 in the data and bss columns in "size" anyway (it will be included in
192 "text"). So you can have constant tables of protocol data.
198 Please see the separate document, lib/talloc/talloc_guide.txt
199 You _must_ read this if you want to program in Samba4.
205 One of the biggest changes in Samba4 is the universal use of interface
206 structures. Go take a look through include/smb_interfaces.h now to get
207 an idea of what I am talking about.
209 In Samba3 many of the core wire structures in the SMB protocol were
210 never explicitly defined in Samba. Instead, our parse and generation
211 functions just worked directly with wire buffers. The biggest problem
212 with this is that is tied our parse code with our "business logic"
213 much too closely, which meant the code got extremely confusing to
216 In Samba4 we have explicitly defined interface structures for
217 everything in the protocol. When we receive a buffer we always parse
218 it completely into one of these structures, then we pass a pointer to
219 that structure to a backend handler. What we must *not* do is make any
220 decisions about the data inside the parse functions. That is critical
221 as different backends will need different portions of the data. This
222 leads to a golden rule for Samba4:
224 "don't design interfaces that lose information"
226 In Samba3 our backends often received "condensed" versions of the
227 information sent from clients, but this inevitably meant that some
228 backends could not get at the data they needed to do what they wanted,
229 so from now on we should expose the backends to all of the available
230 information and let them choose which bits they want.
232 Ok, so now some of you will be thinking "this sounds just like our
233 msrpc code from Samba3", and while to some extent this is true there
234 are extremely important differences in the approach that are worth
237 In the Samba3 msrpc code we used explicit parse structures for all
238 msrpc functions. The problem is that we didn't just put all of the
239 real variables in these structures, we also put in all the artifacts
240 as well. A good example is the security descriptor strucrure that
241 looks like this in Samba3::
243 typedef struct security_descriptor_info
248 uint32 off_owner_sid;
259 The problem with this structure is all the off_* variables. Those are
260 not part of the interface, and do not appear in any real descriptions
261 of Microsoft security descriptors. They are parsing artifacts
262 generated by the IDL compiler that Microsoft use. That doesn't mean
263 they aren't needed on the wire - indeed they are as they tell the
264 parser where to find the following four variables, but they should
265 *NOT* be in the interface structure.
267 In Samba3 there were unwritten rules about which variables in a
268 structure a high level caller has to fill in and which ones are filled
269 in by the marshalling code. In Samba4 those rules are gone, because
270 the redundent artifact variables are gone. The high level caller just
271 sets up the real variables and the marshalling code worries about
272 generating the right offsets.
274 The same rule applies to strings. In many places in the SMB and MSRPC
275 protocols complex strings are used on the wire, with complex rules
276 about padding, format, alighment, termination etc. None of that
277 information is useful to a high level calling routine or to a backend - its
278 all just so much wire fluff. So, in Samba4 these strings are
279 just "char \*" and are always in our internal multi-byte format (which
280 is usually UTF8). It is up to the parse functions to worry about
281 translating the format and getting the padding right.
283 The one exception to this is the use of the WIRE_STRING type, but that
284 has a very good justification in terms of regression testing. Go and
285 read the comment in smb_interfaces.h about that now.
287 So, here is another rule to code by. When writing an interface
288 structure think carefully about what variables in the structure can be
289 left out as they are redundent. If some length is effectively defined
290 twice on the wire then only put it once in the packet. If a length can
291 be inferred from a null termination then do that and leave the length
292 out of the structure completely. Don't put redundent stuff in
299 Samba4 has an asynchronous design. That affects *lots* of the code,
300 and the implications of the asynchronous design needs to be considered
301 just about everywhere.
303 The first aspect of the async design to look at is the SMB client
304 library. Lets take a look at the following three functions in
305 libcli/raw/rawfile.c::
307 struct cli_request *smb_raw_seek_send(struct cli_tree *tree, struct smb_seek *parms);
308 NTSTATUS smb_raw_seek_recv(struct cli_request *req, struct smb_seek *parms);
309 NTSTATUS smb_raw_seek(struct cli_tree *tree, struct smb_seek *parms);
311 Go and read them now then come back.
313 Ok, first notice there there are 3 separate functions, whereas the
314 equivalent code in Samba3 had just one. Also note that the 3rd
315 function is extremely simple - its just a wrapper around calling the
318 The three separate functions are needed because we need to be able to
319 generate SMB calls asynchronously. The first call, which for smb calls
320 is always called smb_raw_XXXX_send(), constructs and sends a SMB
321 request and returns a "struct cli_request" which acts as a handle for
322 the request. The caller is then free to do lots of other calls if it
323 wants to, then when it is ready it can call the smb_raw_XXX_recv()
324 function to receive the reply.
326 If all you want is a synchronous call then call the 3rd interface, the
327 one called smb_raw_XXXX(). That just calls the first two in order, and
328 blocks waiting for the reply.
330 But what if you want to be called when the reply comes in? Yes, thats
331 possible. You can do things like this::
333 struct cli_request *req;
335 req = smb_raw_XXX_send(tree, params);
337 req->async.fn = my_callback;
338 req->async.private = my_private_data;
340 then in your callback function you can call the smb_raw_XXXX_recv()
341 function to receive the reply. Your callback will receive the "req"
342 pointer, which you can use to retrieve your private data from
345 Then all you need to do is ensure that the main loop in the client
346 library gets called. You can either do that by polling the connection
347 using cli_transport_pending() and cli_request_receive_next() or you
348 can use transport->idle.func to setup an idle function handler to call
349 back to your main code. Either way, you can build a fully async
352 In order to support all of this we have to make sure that when we
353 write a piece of library code (SMB, MSRPC etc) that we build the
354 separate _send() and _recv() functions. It really is worth the effort.
356 Now about async in smbd, a much more complex topic.
358 The SMB protocol is inherently async. Some functions (such as change
359 notify) often don't return for hours, while hundreds of other
360 functions pass through the socket. Take a look at the RAW-MUX test in
361 the Samba4 smbtorture to see some really extreme examples of the sort
362 of async operations that Windows supports. I particularly like the
363 open/open/close sequence where the 2nd open (which conflicts with the
364 first) succeeds because the subsequent close is answered out of order.
366 In Samba3 we handled this stuff very badly. We had awful "pending
367 request" queues that allocated full 128k packet buffers, and even with
368 all that crap we got the semantics wrong. In Samba4 I intend to make
369 sure we get this stuff right.
371 So, how do we do this? We now have an async interface between smbd and
372 the NTVFS backends. Whenever smbd calls into a backend the backend has
373 an option of answer the request in a synchronous fashion if it wants
374 to just like in Samba3, but it also has the option of answering the
375 request asynchronously. The only backend that currently does this is
376 the CIFS backend, but I hope the other backends will soon do this to.
378 To make this work you need to do things like this in the backend::
380 req->control_flags |= REQ_CONTROL_ASYNC;
382 that tells smbd that the backend has elected to reply later rather
383 than replying immediately. The backend must *only* do this if
384 req->async.send_fn is not NULL. If send_fn is NULL then it means that
385 the smbd front end cannot handle this function being replied to in an
388 If the backend does this then it is up to the backend to call
389 req->async.send_fn() when it is ready to reply. It the meantime smbd
390 puts the call on hold and goes back to answering other requests on the
393 Inside smbd you will find that there is code to support this. The most
394 obvious change is that smbd splits each SMB reply function into two
395 parts - just like the client library has a _send() and _recv()
396 function, so smbd has a _send() function and the parse function for
399 As an example go and have a look at reply_getatr_send() and
400 reply_getatr() in smb_server/reply.c. Read them? Good.
402 Notice that reply_getatr() sets up the req->async structure to contain
403 the send function. Thats how the backend gets to do an async reply, it
404 calls this function when it is ready. Also notice that reply_getatr()
405 only does the parsing of the request, and does not do the reply
406 generation. That is done by the _send() function.
408 The only missing piece in the Samba4 right now that prevents it being
409 fully async is that it currently does the low level socket calls (read
410 and write on sockets) in a blocking fashion. It does use select() to
411 make it somewhat async, but if a client were to send a partial packet
412 then delay before sending the rest then smbd would be stuck waiting
413 for the second half of the packet.
415 To fix this I plan on making the socket calls async as well, which
416 luckily will not involve any API changes in the core of smbd or the
417 library. It just involves a little bit of extra code in clitransport.c
418 and smbd/request.c. As a side effect I hope that this will also reduce
419 the average number of system calls required to answer a request, so we
420 may see a performance improvement.
426 One of the most noticeable changes in Samba4 is the introduction of
427 the NTVFS layer. This provided the initial motivation for the design
428 of Samba4 and in many ways lies at the heart of the design.
430 In Samba3 the main file serving process (smbd) combined the handling
431 of the SMB protocol with the mapping to POSIX semantics in the same
432 code. If you look in smbd/reply.c in Samba3 you see numerous places
433 where POSIX assumptions are mixed tightly with SMB parsing code. We
434 did have a VFS layer in Samba3, but it was a POSIX-like VFS layer, so
435 no matter how you wrote a plugin you could not bypass the POSIX
436 mapping decisions that had already been made before the VFS layer was
439 In Samba4 things are quite different. All SMB parsing is performed in
440 the smbd front end, then fully parsed requests are passed to the NTVFS
441 backend. That backend makes any semantic mapping decisions and fills
442 in the 'out' portion of the request. The front end is then responsible
443 for putting those results into wire format and sending them to the
446 Lets have a look at one of those request structures. Go and read the
447 definition of "union smb_write" and "enum write_level" in
448 include/smb_interfaces.h. (no, don't just skip reading it, really go
449 and read it. Yes, that means you!).
451 Notice the union? That's how Samba4 allows a single NTVFS backend
452 interface to handle the several different ways of doing a write
453 operation in the SMB protocol. Now lets look at one section of that
456 /* SMBwriteX interface */
458 enum write_level level;
474 see the "in" and "out" sections? The "in" section is for parameters
475 that the SMB client sends on the wire as part of the request. The smbd
476 front end parse code parses the wire request and fills in all those
477 parameters. It then calls the NTVFS interface which looks like this::
479 NTSTATUS (*write)(struct request_context *req, union smb_write *io);
481 and the NTVFS backend does the write request. The backend then fills
482 in the "out" section of the writex structure and gives the union back
483 to the front end (either by returning, or if done in an async fashion
484 then by calling the async send function. See the async discussion
485 elsewhere in this document).
487 The NTVFS backend knows which particular function is being requested
488 by looking at io->generic.level. Notice that this enum is also
489 repeated inside each of the sub-structures in the union, so the
490 backend could just as easily look at io->writex.level and would get
493 Notice also that some levels (such as splwrite) don't have an "out"
494 section. This happens because there is no return value apart from a
495 status code from those SMB calls.
497 So what about status codes? The status code is returned directly by
498 the backend NTVFS interface when the call is performed
499 synchronously. When performed asynchronously then the status code is
500 put into req->async.status before the req->async.send_fn() callback is
503 Currently the most complete NTVFS backend is the CIFS backend. I don't
504 expect this backend will be used much in production, but it does
505 provide the ideal test case for our NTVFS design. As it offers the
506 full capabilities that are possible with a CIFS server we can be sure
507 that we don't have any gaping holes in our APIs, and that the front
508 end code is flexible enough to handle any advances in the NT style
509 feature sets of Unix filesystems that make come along.
515 In Samba3 we supported just one process model. It just so happens that
516 the process model that Samba3 supported is the "right" one for most
517 users, but there are situations where this model wasn't ideal.
519 In Samba4 you can choose the smbd process model on the smbd command
523 DCERPC binding strings
524 ----------------------
526 When connecting to a dcerpc service you need to specify a binding
531 TRANSPORT:host[flags]
533 where TRANSPORT is either ncacn_np for SMB or ncacn_ip_tcp for RPC/TCP
535 "host" is an IP or hostname or netbios name. If the binding string
536 identifies the server side of an endpoint, "host" may be an empty
539 "flags" can include a SMB pipe name if using the ncacn_np transport or
540 a TCP port number if using the ncacn_ip_tcp transport, otherwise they
541 will be auto-determined.
543 other recognised flags are:
545 sign : enable ntlmssp signing
546 seal : enable ntlmssp sealing
547 spnego : use SPNEGO instead of NTLMSSP authentication
548 krb5 : use KRB5 instead of NTLMSSP authentication
549 connect : enable rpc connect level auth (auth, but no sign or seal)
550 validate : enable the NDR validator
551 print : enable debugging of the packets
552 bigendian : use bigendian RPC
553 padcheck : check reply data for non-zero pad bytes
556 Here are some examples:
559 ncacn_np:myserver[samr]
560 ncacn_np:myserver[\pipe\samr]
561 ncacn_np:myserver[/pipe/samr]
562 ncacn_np:myserver[samr,sign,print]
563 ncacn_np:myserver[sign,spnego]
564 ncacn_np:myserver[\pipe\samr,sign,seal,bigendian]
565 ncacn_np:myserver[/pipe/samr,seal,validate]
567 ncacn_np:[/pipe/samr]
568 ncacn_ip_tcp:myserver
569 ncacn_ip_tcp:myserver[1024]
570 ncacn_ip_tcp:myserver[sign,seal]
571 ncacn_ip_tcp:myserver[spnego,seal]
574 IDEA: Maybe extend UNC names like this?
576 smbclient //server/share
577 smbclient //server/share[sign,seal,spnego]
581 The various handles that are used in the RPC servers should be created and
582 fetch using the dcesrv_handle_* functions.
584 Use dcesrv_handle_new(struct dcesrv_connection \*, uint8 handle_type) to obtain
585 a new handle of the specified type. Handle types are unique within each
588 The handle can later be fetched again using::
590 struct dcesrv_handle *dcesrv_handle_fetch(struct dcesrv_connection *dce_conn, struct policy_handle *p, uint8 handle_type)
594 dcesrv_handle_destroy(struct dcesrv_handle *).
596 User data should be stored in the 'data' member of the dcesrv_handle struct.
606 - command line handling
615 don't zero structures! avoid ZERO_STRUCT() and talloc_zero()
618 GMT vs TZ in printout of QFILEINFO timezones
620 put in full UNC path in tconx
622 test timezone handling by using a server in different zone from client
624 do {} while (0) system
626 NT_STATUS_IS_OK() is NOT the opposite of NT_STATUS_IS_ERR()
628 need to implement secondary parts of trans2 and nttrans in server and
631 document access_mask in openx reply
633 check all capabilities and flag1, flag2 fields (eg. EAs)
635 large files -> pass thru levels
637 setpathinfo is very fussy about null termination of the file name
639 the overwrite flag doesn't seem to work on setpathinfo RENAME_INFORMATION
641 END_OF_FILE_INFORMATION and ALLOCATION_INFORMATION don't seem to work
644 on w2k3 setpathinfo DISPOSITION_INFORMATION fails, but does have an
645 effect. It leaves the file with SHARING_VIOLATION.
647 on w2k3 trans2 setpathinfo with any invalid low numbered level causes
648 the file to get into a state where DELETE_PENDING is reported, and the
649 file cannot be deleted until you reboot
651 trans2 qpathinfo doesn't see the delete_pending flag correctly, but
656 add programming documentation note about lp_set_cmdline()
658 need to add a wct checking function in all client parsing code,
659 similar to REQ_CHECK_WCT()
661 need to make sure that NTTIME is a round number of seconds when
662 converted from time_t
664 not using a zero next offset in SMB_FILE_STREAM_INFORMATION for last
665 entry causes explorer exception under win2000
668 if the server sets the session key the same for a second SMB socket as
669 an initial socket then the client will not re-authenticate, it will go
670 straight to a tconx, skipping session setup and will use all the
671 existing parameters! This allows two sockets with the same keys!?
674 removed blocking lock code, we now queue the whole request the same as
675 we queue any other pending request. This allows for things like a
676 close() while a pending blocking lock is being processed to operate
679 disabled change notify code
689 client library and test code
690 ----------------------------
692 convert client library to new structure
693 get smbtorture working
694 get smbclient working
695 expand client library for all requests
696 write per-request test suite
697 gentest randomised test suite
698 separate client code as a library for non-Samba use
702 add remaining core SMB requests
706 fix auth models (share, server, rpc)
707 get net command working
708 connect CIFS backend to server level auth
711 reconnect printing code
712 restore removed smbd options
713 add smb.conf macro substitution code
714 add async backend notification
715 add generic timer event mechanism
721 new server models (break 1-1)
722 test clustered models
723 add fulcrum statistics gathering
736 - store all config in config.ldb
738 - load from smb.conf if modtime changes
740 - dump full system config with ldbsearch
742 - will need the ability to form a ldif difference file
744 - advanced web admin via a web ldb editor
746 - normal web admin via web forms -> ldif
748 - config.ldb will replace smb.conf, secrets.tdb, shares.tdb etc
750 - subsystems in smbd will load config parameters for a share
751 using ldbsearch at tconx time
753 - need a loadparm equivalent module that provides parameter defaults
755 - start smbd like this: "smbd -C tdb://etc/samba/config.ldb" or
756 "smbd -C ldapi://var/run/ldapi"
758 - write a tool that generates a template ldap schema from an existing
761 - no need to HUP smbd to reload config
763 - how to handle configuration comments? same problem as SWAT
767 add a test case for last_entry_offset in trans2 find interfaces
770 no 137 resolution not possible
771 should not fallback to anon when pass supplied
772 should check pass-thu cap bit, and skip lots of tests
773 possibly allow the test suite to say "allow oversized replies" for trans2 and other calls
774 handle servers that don't have the setattre call in torture
775 add max file coponent length test and max path len test
776 check for alloc failure in all core reply.c and trans2.c code where allocation size depends on client parameter
778 case-insenstive idea:
779 all filenames on disk lowercase
780 real case in extended attribute
781 keep cache of what dirs are all lowercase
782 when searching for name, don't search if dir is definately all lowercase
783 when creating file, use dnotify to tell if someone else creates at
787 make mangle cache dynamic size
788 fill during a dir scan
790 destroy cache after 30 sec
791 destroy if a 2nd dir scan happens on same dir