Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262117AbUK3P1Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:27:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262110AbUK3P1Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:27:16 -0500 Received: from viking.sophos.com ([194.203.134.132]:12804 "EHLO viking.sophos.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262117AbUK3PTZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:19:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on Tvrtko Ursulin/Dev/UK/Sophos(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 30/11/2004 15:19:10, Serialize by Notes Client on Tvrtko Ursulin/Dev/UK/Sophos(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 30/11/2004 15:19:10, Serialize complete at 30/11/2004 15:19:10, S/MIME Sign failed at 30/11/2004 15:19:10: The cryptographic key was not found, S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on Tvrtko Ursulin/Dev/UK/Sophos(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 30/11/2004 15:19:19, Serialize by Notes Client on Tvrtko Ursulin/Dev/UK/Sophos(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 30/11/2004 15:19:19, Serialize complete at 30/11/2004 15:19:19, S/MIME Sign failed at 30/11/2004 15:19:19: The cryptographic key was not found, Serialize by Router on Mercury/Servers/Sophos(Release 6.5.2|June 01, 2004) at 30/11/2004 15:19:24, Serialize complete at 30/11/2004 15:19:24 To: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, torvalds@osdl.org Subject: Re: [BUG ?] smbfs open always succeeds X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.12 February 13, 2003 Message-ID: From: tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:19:19 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1102 Lines: 25 >I posted a possible bug report to the maintainer about 10 days ago but >with no response, therefore here it goes again. As far a I can tell it is >common for both 2.4 and 2.6. > >Sorry if this is not a bug but some hidden functionality! > >--- snippet from the original mail to the maintainer --- > >Looking at linux-2.6.9/fs/smbfs/file.c line 365 (end of the smb_file_open >function). Shouldn't it be "return result;" instead of "return 0;" ? > >I've been tracing some strange behaviour and this fixed it for me. But I >am far away from being an expert. :) I investigated a bit and found a nfs_open function at linux-2.6.9/fs/nfs/inode.c line 906 which also always returns 0. So is this a network filesystem way of handling opens and not a bug after all? I am not sure though that both nfs and smbfs operate in the same way and am not claiming that. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/