[cifs-protocol] [REG:112110862761681] FSCTL_SRV_COPYCHUNK error response

[Bryan Burgin]

[dochelp to bcc]
[adding case number and casemail]

Hi David,

We created the support incident SR 112110862761681 to track this issue.  An engineer from the team will contact you soon.

Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: David Disseldorp [mailto:ddiss at suse.de] 
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 6:38 AM
To: Interoperability Documentation Help; cifs-protocol at cifs.org; pfif at tridgell.net
Subject: FSCTL_SRV_COPYCHUNK error response

Hi DocHelp,

[MS-SMB2] currently describes the response to a FSCTL_SRV_COPYCHUNK SMB2 ioctl request with the following:

  3.3.4.4 Sending an Error Response

  When the server is responding with a failure to any command sent by
  the client, the response message MUST be constructed as described
  here. An error code other than one of the following indicates a
  failure:
...
  - Any status other than STATUS_SUCCESS in a FSCTL_SRV_COPYCHUNK or
    FSCTL_SRV_COPYCHUNK_WRITE Response, when returning an
    SRV_COPYCHUNK_RESPONSE as described in section 2.2.32.1.
...
  Following the SMB2 header MUST be an SMB2 ERROR Response structure, as
  specified in section 2.2.2.


  2.2.32.1 SRV_COPYCHUNK_RESPONSE

  ChunksWritten (4 bytes): If the Status field in the SMB2 header of the
  response is not STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER, as specified in [MS-ERREF]
  section 2.3, this value indicates the number of chunks that were
  successfully written. If the Status field in the SMB2 header of
  the response is STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER, this value indicates the
  maximum number of chunks that the server will accept in a single
  request. This would allow the client to correctly reissue the request.

...

I interpret the above text as meaning that the response to a FSCTL_SRV_COPYCHUNK SMB2 ioctl request will not include an SMB2 Error Response structure. Instead, a SRV_COPYCHUNK_RESPONSE structure will be returned, either with the request maximums (in the case of STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER), or the amount successfully written.

Testing against Windows Server 2012 does not back up my interpretation.
Issuing a FSCTL_SRV_COPYCHUNK SMB2 ioctl request with an invalid SourceKey field sees the server respond with an Error Response and STATUS_OBJECT_NAME_NOT_FOUND.

Have I misinterpreted the documentation, or would it make sense to change 3.3.4.4?
An error code other than one of the following indicates a failure:
- A status of STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER in a FSCTL_SRV_COPYCHUNK or
  FSCTL_SRV_COPYCHUNK_WRITE Response...

Regards, David