From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="SPv3fJ3y" Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 775C9D3 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 09:42:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1701452565; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=z47hL4KpWk+c3Hdq11pVRx/NLPdCpAYc/wSjG9tjP6M=; b=SPv3fJ3yX1Ah32xDoDV0vQ42axzZH9weTA8grBAC6X/EIvKp8BiAwW8SIXlu5y8lWZOCl6 vq5AT7p8OJYpNvGIbHmoSNxcqjrI0mS/2+XYTSfhDCOLCy7Y92NdKyE4uqXmfKULbX2bO+ aIBq8ZVTy2ph5Fn/nvmNubD7MN7klwM= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-654-L5MVXWwrPYy-9u2rKNZW6w-1; Fri, 01 Dec 2023 12:42:41 -0500 X-MC-Unique: L5MVXWwrPYy-9u2rKNZW6w-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FE53185A784; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 17:42:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from warthog.procyon.org.uk (unknown [10.42.28.161]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84059492BE0; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 17:42:40 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <3755038.1701447306@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Paulo Alcantara Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Steve French , ronniesahlberg@gmail.com, aaptel@samba.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: cifs hardlink misbehaviour in generic/002? Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3812668.1701452559.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2023 17:42:39 +0000 Message-ID: <3812669.1701452559@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.9 Paulo Alcantara wrote: > David Howells writes: > > > I've seeing some weird behaviour in the upstream Linux cifs filesystem > > that's causing generic/002 to fail. The test case makes a file and > > creates a number of hardlinks to it, then deletes those hardlinks in > > reverse order, checking the link count on the original file each time it > > removes one. > > I could also reproduce it in ksmbd but not in Windows Server 2022 or > samba v4.19. Yeah - works for me with samba also; just not with ksmbd. David