[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cifs-protocol
Subject:    Re: [cifs-protocol] [EXTERNAL] Re: Clarification on expected behavior with SMB2 short reads/writes. 
From:       Obaid Farooqi via cifs-protocol <cifs-protocol () lists ! samba ! org>
Date:       2020-06-02 19:55:51
Message-ID: SN6PR2101MB1710DB50FEDA160A11EE3D29C68B0 () SN6PR2101MB1710 ! namprd21 ! prod ! outlook ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Jeremy:
All you said is spot on. 

Regards,
Obaid Farooqi
Escalatiion Engineer | Microsoft

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 1:51 PM
To: Obaid Farooqi <obaidf@microsoft.com>
Cc: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>; cifs-protocol <cifs-protocol@lists.samba.org>; \
Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>; Bradley Suinn <suinn@apple.com>; support \
                <support@mail.support.microsoft.com>; jra@samba.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Clarification on expected behavior with SMB2 short \
reads/writes. [120051422002815]

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 06:40:51PM +0000, Obaid Farooqi wrote:
> Hi Jeremy:
> Windows redirector neither dictates the number of bytes read nor it checks for \
> returned bytes. It is not a bug on redirector. Redirector's behavior is clearly \
> documented in the MS-SMB2.

Hmmm. So the redirector behavior is being driven directly by the COPY command here \
then ?

Not being able to see the source code for COPY, I wonder if it is using the CopyFile \
API here, in which case it may be an issue in the way the CopyFile API is driving the \
redirector.

Either way, not checking read returns is a bug, whoever is (not) doing it :-).

_______________________________________________
cifs-protocol mailing list
cifs-protocol@lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]