Fwd: SMB2 not respecting mtime values

Ralph Böhme slow at samba.org
Thu Jan 24 20:16:32 UTC 2019

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 09:25:59AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 06:09:45PM +0100, Ralph Böhme wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 09:03:41AM -0800, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical wrote:
>> > Maybe. Changing meta-data semantics on write is fraught with danger,
>> > and we don't even do that for SMB1 unix extensions. So let's not
>> > add contraints we don't understand yet please.
>> >
>> > My money is on a client bug, as always :-).
>> fwiw, just in case you were not aware of this one:
>> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13594
>Yeah I knew about that. But the detail here is:
>"We basically implement the behavior of Windows 2000:"
>which means we were right at one point :-).

yes, at that point is now 19 years in the past. :)

>> We also seem to have a bug that a set-eof on a handle with
>> set-eof-size=existing-size doesn't flush a pending write time update. At
>> least newer Windows server seem to do that.
>Bug number ?

Not yet, we just ran into this at a customer and are still inspecting the 

>BTW I'm a big fan of making us the
>same as recent Windows versions (that's what
>most clients will be testing against), I just
>don't want to change our behavior for UNIX
>extensions. That way lies madness :-).

No. Either way lies madness. :)))


Ralph Boehme, Samba Team                https://samba.org/
Samba Developer, SerNet GmbH   https://sernet.de/en/samba/
GPG-Fingerprint   FAE2C6088A24252051C559E4AA1E9B7126399E46

More information about the samba-technical mailing list