Any opinions?

What is the rationale behind this change, please? Moreover, I guess @jrm is the best samba person in this ballroom.

In D48313#1102823, @otis wrote:

What is the rationale behind this change, please? Moreover, I guess @jrm is the best samba person in this ballroom.

We don't need to have the fdescfs from Linux compat which requires the linux.ko. We can happily use the FreeBSD native fdescfs mount for Samba 4.

In D48313#1102823, @otis wrote:

What is the rationale behind this change, please? Moreover, I guess @jrm is the best samba person in this ballroom.

FWIW, if I've ever run Samba, it was over 20 years ago.

It would be nice to hear from someone on samba@. Are there any open questions from bug#277878? If not, and @michaelo, if you are satisfied this is safe, I will approve.

Another question, is this applicable to net/samba416?

In D48313#1102926, @jrm wrote:

In D48313#1102823, @otis wrote:

What is the rationale behind this change, please? Moreover, I guess @jrm is the best samba person in this ballroom.

FWIW, if I've ever run Samba, it was over 20 years ago.

It would be nice to hear from someone on samba@. Are there any open questions from bug#277878? If not, and @michaelo, if you are satisfied this is safe, I will approve.

I checked with truss, it works the way expected.

In D48313#1102927, @jrm wrote:

Another question, is this applicable to net/samba416?

Samba 4.16 is completely different, due to new VFS code they do not really compare, but I can check.

In D48313#1102933, @michaelo wrote:

In D48313#1102927, @jrm wrote:

Another question, is this applicable to net/samba416?

Samba 4.16 is completely different, due to new VFS code they do not really compare, but I can check.

I have just checked, the 4.16 is affected, but already contains a reasonable patch from @timur which I'd prefer to port at some later point in time.

In D48313#1102926, @jrm wrote:

In D48313#1102823, @otis wrote:

What is the rationale behind this change, please? Moreover, I guess @jrm is the best samba person in this ballroom.

FWIW, if I've ever run Samba, it was over 20 years ago.

It would be nice to hear from someone on samba@. Are there any open questions from bug#277878? If not, and @michaelo, if you are satisfied this is safe, I will approve.

I am satisfied. Regarding bug #277878, it conflates at least two different issues. This review addresses one of them. The other one is in investigation. I'd happy to commit this today.