[DocHelp to Bcc]

Hi Jeremy,

Thank you for your request. The case number 2209220040008649 has been created 
for this inquiry. One of our team members will follow-up with you soon.

Regards,
Kristian

Kristian Smith
Support Escalation Engineer
Windows Open Spec Protocols
Office: (425) 421-4442
[email protected] 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Allison <[email protected]> 
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 4:02 PM
To: Interoperability Documentation Help <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; metze <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Seeking clarification of SMB3 async behavior in a compound 
request.

Hi Dochelp,

I'm seeking clarify on the behavior of compound requests going async in SMB3.

MS-SMB2 states in:

-------------------------------------------------------
3.3.5.2.7.2 Handling Compounded Related Requests

When an operation requires asynchronous processing, all the subsequent 
operations MUST also be processed asynchronously. The server MUST send an 
interim response for all such operations as specified in section 3.3.4.2.
-------------------------------------------------------

But this doesn't appear to be the case against Windows 2022.

I have a set of tests that do the following to force asynchronous operation in 
compound requests against Windows 2022 (thanks to Metze for the ideas for 
these).

Test #1

     Opendir foo <- returns foo-handle
     notify on foo-handle
     create foo/bar
     notify recv
     delete foo/bar
Compound --------------
      notify on foo-handle
      close (compound handle)
      --------------

When the server sees the compound request starting with the notify in this test 
it should have a pending FILE_DELETED notify return queued up and ready to 
return for the compound notify, so this test should not need to go async at all.

However, Windows 2022 returns NT_STATUS_INTERNAL_ERROR for the compound notify 
request.

Test #2

     Opendir foo <- returns foo-handle
     notify on foo-handle
     create foo/bar
     notify recv
     delete foo/bar
Compound --------------
      getinfo foo-handle
      notify (compound handle)
      close (compound handle)
      --------------

This test is the same as test #1, with
the addition of the getinfo foo-handle
in the compound to determine how Windows behaves when a request that might go 
async is in the middle of the compound stream.

When the server sees the compound request starting with the notify in this test 
it should have a pending DELETE-FILE notify return queued up and ready to 
return for the compound notify, so this test should not need to go async at all.

However, Windows 2022 returns NT_STATUS_INTERNAL_ERROR for the compound notify 
request.

Test #3

     Opendir foo <- returns foo-handle
     notify on foo-handle
     create foo/bar
     notify recv
Compound --------------
      notify foo-handle
      close (compound handle)
      --------------

When the server sees the compound request starting with the notify in this test 
it should have no pending requests to return, and so the compound notify should 
be forced to go async.

However, Windows 2022 returns NT_STATUS_INTERNAL_ERROR for the compound notify 
request.

Test #4

     Opendir foo <- returns foo-handle
     notify on foo-handle
     notify foo
     create foo/bar
     notify recv
Compound --------------
      getinfo foo-handle
      notify (compound handle)
      close (compound handle)
      --------------

This test is the same as test #1, with
the addition of the getinfo foo-handle
in the compound to determine how Windows behaves when a request that might go 
async is in the middle of the compound stream.

When the server sees the compound notify request in this test it should have no 
pending requests to return, and so the compound notify should be forced to go 
async.

However, Windows 2022 returns NT_STATUS_INTERNAL_ERROR for the compound notify 
request.

It appears Windows 2022 might treat SMB2_OP_NOTIFY differently to other 
requests in a compound but I can't find this documented anywhere.

I can send test patches against Samba smbtorture to show reproduction of this 
locally, or can send in packet traces for any or all of these tests.

Thanks !

Jeremy.

_______________________________________________
cifs-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol

Reply via email to