archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steve French <>
To: Jeremy Allison <>
Cc: ronnie sahlberg <>,
	linux-fsdevel <>,
	CIFS <>,
	Pavel Shilovsky <>,
	samba-technical <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cifs/smb3: directory sync should not return an error
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 17:25:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180510221248.GA203322@jra3>

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Jeremy Allison <> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 08:08:46AM +1000, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
>> MS-SMB2.pdf  is pretty clear that FLUSH can only be used on files or pipes.
>> If we start using it for directory handles we would need some
>> clarifications about this use in the spec.
> Yes. MS-SMB2 is also wrong :-).
> I have test code that proves FLUSH works against any directory
> handle opened with FILE_ADD|DIRECTORY_ADD access mask granted.
> (Steve thought this might be special cased to just the root
> directory handle on a share, this turns out not to be the
> case - any directory handle with the required access works
> OK).
>> I would wait until MS-SMB2 is updated before we start sending FLUSH on
>> directory handles.
> We need to deal with the protocol as it really is,
> not as the documentation would like it to be :-).

Current behavior seems to be that (for SMB2/SMB3 as with NFS)
servers are not expected to cache file creates.   If we send a flush over
the wire without a lot more testing we could break even more apps - unless
we simply send the request and ignore the return code which I would prefer
not to do until we get feedback from more servers and clarification from
MS-SMB2).  What we don't want to do is pass EINVAL back which breaks some.

Ronnie said it well:
" If/once ms-smb2.pdf is updated to describe the semantics for flush
on a directory, then we can think about using flush here. Not before.
Otherwise we just revert back to chasing implementation specific
behavior" (as we did with SMB1)

(so fix the current behavior - then think about whether we can safely
send this as a flush if there are any valid cases which MS-SMB2
exposes in the future).



  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-10 22:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-10 16:04 [PATCH] cifs/smb3: directory sync should not return an error Steve French
2018-05-10 16:37 ` Jeremy Allison
2018-05-10 17:11 ` Pavel Shilovsky
2018-05-10 18:48   ` Jeremy Allison
2018-05-10 20:28     ` Steve French
2018-05-10 21:56       ` Steve French
2018-05-10 22:08         ` ronnie sahlberg
2018-05-10 22:12           ` Jeremy Allison
2018-05-10 22:25             ` Steve French [this message]
2018-05-10 23:06               ` Jeremy Allison
2018-05-10 21:01 ` ronnie sahlberg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).