[PATCH] s3:client: Add "scopy" cmd to perform Server Side copy using smbclient.

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 13:34 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 08:11:50AM +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 10:34 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:37:18AM +0530, Anubhav Rakshit wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Anubhav Rakshit <anubhav.rakshit at gmail.com>
> > > 
> > > Thanks Anubhav - this looks really good ! Here is a slightly
> > > updated version with a few changes.
> > > 
> > > 1). Raised the debug level from 1 to 5 of the splice messages
> > > (doesnt' flood client console).
> > > 
> > > 2). Added missing cli_close of src fd if open of dest file fails.
> > > 
> > > 3). Added xml-docs for new command.
> > > 
> > > Can I get a second Team reviewer ?
> > 
> > We need a blackbox test for this, at the very least.  I also think it
> > would be better if it was named as 'copy'. 
> 
> I actually prefer the name scopy. "copy" means copy to client (at least in my mind,
> I keep typing "copy remote local" in smbclient and forgetting I have to
> type "get" :-). scopy is a mnemonic that this means an
> attempt to do server-side copy to me.
> 
> > If practical, to allow tests and to prove the server-side is working it
> > should have a --force-server-side option that would only work in
> > server-side.
> 
> Right now there are 2 levels of fallback. (1) is on the server
> where if a non COW filesystem is used, where the server does
> pread/pwrite on the underlying filesystem. I think btrfs is the
> only currently supported COW system. (2) is on the client
> side where a read/write path is selected if the protocol is
> SMB1 or if the FSCTL_SRV_COPYCHUNK_WRITE is rejected.
> 
> For a test, we could do scopy over SMB2 (using server-side
> FSCTL_SRV_COPYCHUNK_WRITE) and then again forcing SMB1
> (which will do client read/write) to test both paths ?
> 
> Don't think that should block adding this one in though.
> I'll work on an smbclient test once I've finished the
> other reviews in my queue (you know the ones I mean :-).

Yes, we need both those tests.  This isn't urgent, we should be able to
wait till those are written.  (I indeed know what your queue looks like,
and I really don't want tests forgotten, we must never add untested
code). 

Thanks,

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                       http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team  http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT          http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba