[cifs-protocol] [REG:113102210883291] - [MS-SMB2] NT_STATUS_REQUEST_NOT_ACCEPTED?

Edgar Olougouna 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.

-----Original Message-----
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] NT_STATUS_REQUEST_NOT_ACCEPTED?

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:49:11AM +0000, Edgar Olougouna wrote:
> Volker,
> After further review, we will update MS-SMB2 to reflect the observed 
> behavior.


> 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 
> document.
> 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 mailing list