Hi David: I'll help you with this issue and would be in touch as soon as I have an answer.
Please send me the network trace of the behavior you are observing. Regards, Obaid Farooqi Escalation Engineer | Microsoft Exceeding your expectations is my highest priority. If you would like to provide feedback on your case you may contact my manager at nkang at Microsoft dot com -----Original Message----- From: David Disseldorp [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:38 AM To: Interoperability Documentation Help; [email protected]; [email protected] 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 Microsoft is committed to protecting your privacy. Please read the Microsoft Privacy Statement for more information.The above is an email for a support case from Microsoft Corp.REPLY ALL TO THIS MESSAGE or INCLUDE [email protected] IN YOUR REPLY if you want your response added to the case automatically. For technical assistance, please include the Support Engineer on the TO: line. Thank you. _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
