updated docs to match code mods from last two or three updates. done

some more commenting of code to match docs.

sorted some bugs.

ipc BOOL domains was uninitialised.

lkcl
(This used to be commit cb43ce7bc08fa43a6ce49e0937f13afec5dce67b)

1 files changed, 67 insertions, 88 deletions

diff --git a/source3/nameservreply.c b/source3/nameservreply.c
index cd26be5a8b2..6501bded685 100644
--- a/source3/nameservreply.c
+++ b/source3/nameservreply.c
@@ -40,56 +40,23 @@ extern struct in_addr ipgrp;
 
 
 /****************************************************************************
-reply to a name release
-****************************************************************************/
-void reply_name_release(struct packet_struct *p)
+  add a netbios entry. respond to the (possibly new) owner.
+  **************************************************************************/
+void add_name_respond(struct subnet_record *d, int fd, uint16 response_id,
+				struct nmb_name *name,
+				int nb_flags, int ttl, struct in_addr register_ip,
+				BOOL new_owner, struct in_addr reply_to_ip)
 {
-  struct nmb_packet *nmb = &p->packet.nmb;
-  struct in_addr ip;
-  int nb_flags = nmb->additional->rdata[0];
-  BOOL bcast = nmb->header.nm_flags.bcast;
-  struct name_record *n;
-  struct subnet_record *d = NULL;
-  int search = 0;
-  
-  putip((char *)&ip,&nmb->additional->rdata[2]);  
-  
-  DEBUG(3,("Name release on name %s\n",
-	   namestr(&nmb->question.question_name)));
-  
-  if (!(d = find_req_subnet(p->ip, bcast)))
-  {
-    DEBUG(3,("response packet: bcast %s not known\n",
-			inet_ntoa(p->ip)));
-    return;
-  }
-
-  if (bcast)
-	search &= FIND_LOCAL;
-  else
-	search &= FIND_WINS;
-
-  n = find_name_search(&d, &nmb->question.question_name, 
-					search, ip);
-  
-  /* XXXX under what conditions should we reject the removal?? */
-  if (n && n->nb_flags == nb_flags)
-    {
-      /* success = True; */
-      
-      remove_name(d,n);
-      n = NULL;
-    }
-  
-  if (bcast) return;
-  
-  /* Send a NAME RELEASE RESPONSE */
-  send_name_response(p->fd, nmb->header.name_trn_id, NMB_REL,
-						True, False,
-						&nmb->question.question_name, nb_flags, 0, ip);
+	/* register the old or the new owners' ip */
+	add_netbios_entry(d,name->name,name->name_type,
+						nb_flags,ttl,REGISTER,register_ip,False,True);
+
+	/* reply yes or no to the host that requested the name */
+	send_name_response(fd, response_id, NMB_REG,
+				new_owner, True,
+				name, nb_flags, ttl, reply_to_ip);
 }
 
-
 /****************************************************************************
 send a registration / release response: pos/neg
 **************************************************************************/
@@ -133,6 +100,58 @@ void send_name_response(int fd,
 
 
 /****************************************************************************
+reply to a name release
+****************************************************************************/
+void reply_name_release(struct packet_struct *p)
+{
+  struct nmb_packet *nmb = &p->packet.nmb;
+  struct in_addr ip;
+  int nb_flags = nmb->additional->rdata[0];
+  BOOL bcast = nmb->header.nm_flags.bcast;
+  struct name_record *n;
+  struct subnet_record *d = NULL;
+  int search = 0;
+  BOOL success = False;
+  
+  putip((char *)&ip,&nmb->additional->rdata[2]);  
+  
+  DEBUG(3,("Name release on name %s\n",
+	   namestr(&nmb->question.question_name)));
+  
+  if (!(d = find_req_subnet(p->ip, bcast)))
+  {
+    DEBUG(3,("response packet: bcast %s not known\n",
+			inet_ntoa(p->ip)));
+    return;
+  }
+
+  if (bcast)
+	search &= FIND_LOCAL;
+  else
+	search &= FIND_WINS;
+
+  n = find_name_search(&d, &nmb->question.question_name, 
+					search, ip);
+  
+  /* XXXX under what conditions should we reject the removal?? */
+  if (n && n->nb_flags == nb_flags)
+  {
+      success = True;
+      
+      remove_name(d,n);
+      n = NULL;
+  }
+  
+  if (bcast) return;
+  
+  /* Send a NAME RELEASE RESPONSE (pos/neg) see rfc1002.txt 4.2.10-11 */
+  send_name_response(p->fd, nmb->header.name_trn_id, NMB_REL,
+						success, False,
+						&nmb->question.question_name, nb_flags, 0, ip);
+}
+
+
+/****************************************************************************
 reply to a reg request
 **************************************************************************/
 void reply_name_reg(struct packet_struct *p)
@@ -156,10 +175,6 @@ void reply_name_reg(struct packet_struct *p)
 
   BOOL success = True;
   BOOL secured_redirect = False;
-  BOOL recurse = True; /* true if samba replies yes/no: false if caller
-                          must challenge the current owner of the unique
-                          name: applies to non-secured WINS server only
-                        */
 
   struct in_addr ip, from_ip;
   int search = 0;
@@ -205,38 +220,6 @@ void reply_name_reg(struct packet_struct *p)
 	  }
 	  else if(!ip_equal(ip, n->ip))
 	  {
-#if 0
-	      /* hm. this unique name doesn't belong to them. */
-	      
-	      /* XXXX rfc1001.txt says:
-	       * if we are doing non-secured WINS (which is much simpler) then
-	       * we send a message to the person wanting the name saying 'he
-	       * owns this name: i don't want to hear from you ever again
-	       * until you've checked with him if you can have it!'. we then
-	       * abandon the registration. once the person wanting the name
-	       * has checked with the current owner, they will repeat the
-	       * registration packet if the current owner is dead or doesn't
-	       * want the name.
-	       */
-
-	      /* non-secured WINS implementation: caller is responsible
-		 for checking with current owner of name, then getting back
-		 to us... IF current owner no longer owns the unique name */
-	      
-           /* XXXX please note also that samba cannot cope with 
-              _receiving_ such redirecting, non-secured registration
-              packets. code to do this needs to be added.
-            */
-
-          secured_redirect = False;
-	      success = False;
-	      recurse = False;
-	      
-	      /* we inform on the current owner to the caller (which is
-		 why it's non-secure */
-	      
-	      reply_name = &n->name;
-#else
 	      /* XXXX rfc1001.txt says:
 	       * if we are doing secured WINS, we must send a Wait-Acknowledge
 	       * packet (WACK) to the person who wants the name, then do a
@@ -246,12 +229,8 @@ void reply_name_reg(struct packet_struct *p)
 	       */
 
           secured_redirect = True;
-	      recurse = False;
 
 	      reply_name = &n->name;
-
-#endif /* 0 */
-
 	  }
 	  else
 	  {
@@ -324,7 +303,7 @@ void reply_name_reg(struct packet_struct *p)
      */
 
   	send_name_response(p->fd, nmb->header.name_trn_id, NMB_REG,
-						success, recurse,
+						success, True,
 						reply_name, nb_flags, ttl, ip);
   }
 }