[Samba] Recvfile patch issue with windows.

[sp bglr]

Hi All,

The above mentioned recvfile patch has 2 issue. Am using samba 4.1.3.
Metze's patch is not suitable with this version. Jones mentioned that samba
4.1.7.

1. RPC error is one issue (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/887429) i tried
this reg edit but  not worked :(
2. And recvfile not working with windows clients.

Any suggestion are most welcome.All log i attached in previous mail.

Thanks,
Bglr



On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM, sp bglr <spbglr666 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jones,
>
> Thanks.
>
> Unfortunately this patch seems to be not working...Am using samba version
> 4.1.3.
> Is this patch is written for any particular samba version?
>
> Regards,
> Bglr
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Jones <jones.kstw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Bglr,
>>
>> 2014-05-27 19:04 GMT+08:00 sp bglr <spbglr666 at gmail.com>:
>>
>>  I have a recvfile patch for samba4.1. This patch is working with linux
>>> client, But if am trying this with windows client am getting following
>>> error in my server.
>>>
>>> " Unexpected RPC Fragment size! (0)"
>>>
>>> In client side am getting "Remote procedure call failed and did not
>>> execute"
>>>
>>
>> I saw this symptom once on my linux box,
>> after applying the attached patch this symptom is resolved,
>> this attached is came from Metze's more recvfile optimizations.
>>
>> Client OS is windows 7,
>> can reproduce this symptom with following sort on my linux box,
>> 1) samba-4.1.7 and custom kernel patch like
>>     https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/23/37
>> 2) max protocol = SMB2
>> 3) min receivefile size = 1
>>
>> Earlier days wo/ Metze's patch,
>> found 2 methods to way around this symptom:
>> A) max protocol = NT1
>>     Looks like been suffered if with SMB >= 2.0,
>>     hence use NT1 instead.
>> B) min receivefile size = 8192
>>     8192 is going to cover 4280 to avoid recvfile() involved,
>>     see comment on samba-4.1.7/source3/libsmb/cli_np_tstream.c
>>     ''Windows uses 4280 (the max xmit/recv size negotiated on DCERPC)."
>>
>> Hmm perhaps could try this attached patch, thanks.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Jones
>>
>>
>