[cifs-protocol] [REG:113102210883291] - [MS-SMB2] 126.96.36.199.1 NT_STATUS_REQUEST_NOT_ACCEPTED?
edgaro at microsoft.com
Thu Nov 14 09:19:52 MST 2013
Agreed, you are right. The break to L2 does require a response whereas the break L2->None does not. The break L2->None is to inform the client so it arrives at the same consistent state.
From: Volker Lendecke [mailto:Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:14 AM
To: Edgar Olougouna
Cc: 'cifs-protocol at samba.org'; MSSolve Case Email
Subject: Re: [REG:113102210883291] - [cifs-protocol] [MS-SMB2] 188.8.131.52.1 NT_STATUS_REQUEST_NOT_ACCEPTED?
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:49:11AM +0000, Edgar Olougouna wrote:
> After further review, we will update MS-SMB2 to reflect the observed
> Technically, we agree this is server bug and the product group will
> assess its impact and the need for a fix. If they choose to fix in a
> future product release, then the verbiage in the document will reflect
> the expected behavior. In any case, we will need to update the
> The issue is that the client is attempting to acknowledge to oplock
> Level2 when NTFS is in Break-to-none. The fix would be for the SMB
> server to act the same way as it does with leases. The server would
> handle the fact that the current state of NTFS requires a lower break.
> The server should "succeed" the Level2 ack and immediately send a
> break-to-none to the client (and then send an acknowledgement to the
> File System that it is at None).
> This coherent since a break to Level2 is async.
Shouldn't this read "Break level2 to none", or what do you exactly mean by "is async"? My understanding of "async" is to not require a response. The break to L2 does require one, right? It's the break L2->None that does not.
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9 AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de
More information about the cifs-protocol