On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 09:25:59AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 06:09:45PM +0100, Ralph Böhme wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 09:03:41AM -0800, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical wrote:
> Maybe. Changing meta-data semantics on write is fraught with danger,
> and we don't even do that for SMB1 unix extensions. So let's not
> add contraints we don't understand yet please.
>
> My money is on a client bug, as always :-).
fwiw, just in case you were not aware of this one:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13594
Yeah I knew about that. But the detail here is:
"We basically implement the behavior of Windows 2000:"
which means we were right at one point :-).
yes, at that point is now 19 years in the past. :)
We also seem to have a bug that a set-eof on a handle with
set-eof-size=existing-size doesn't flush a pending write time update. At
least newer Windows server seem to do that.
Bug number ?
Not yet, we just ran into this at a customer and are still inspecting the
debris.
BTW I'm a big fan of making us the
same as recent Windows versions (that's what
most clients will be testing against), I just
don't want to change our behavior for UNIX
extensions. That way lies madness :-).
No. Either way lies madness. :)))
-slow
--
Ralph Boehme, Samba Team https://samba.org/
Samba Developer, SerNet GmbH https://sernet.de/en/samba/
GPG-Fingerprint FAE2C6088A24252051C559E4AA1E9B7126399E46
