On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:26:25PM +0000, Neil Hoggarth wrote: > Consider a file with ownership and mode such that a client has > read-only permission on that file. > > Suppose that this file is open read-only by second client, with a > share mode of DENY_WRITE. > > If the first client attempts to open the file read-write then a question > arises: what is the appropriate response by the server? There are > multiple reasons why the open should fail ("access denied" and "share > mode violation"), but the response to the Open AndX request only allows > for one reason to be communicated back to the client (I think ...). > > I raise this issue because Samba (v2.2.7 on Solaris) appears to respond > to this circumstance differently than a Windows 2000 system does - Samba > reports the share mode problem, whereas Windows reports "access denied".
Ok, we treat this as a bug. We need to give the same error codes as W2K as far ar humanly possible. > I stumbled across this distinction when trying to diagnose a problem > with a Windows application called Endnote, which is an academic > reference manager. The application responds differently depending on > which error code it gets - as a result, multiple readers can > simultaneously open an Endnote reference library read-only if it is > stored on Windows share, but only one reader at a time can open the > same file if it is stored on a Samba share. > > The fact that the app tries a read-only open on the file if it gets > "permission denied" but doesn't if it encounters a share mode problem > is arguably a misfeature of the app, and Samba's choice about how to > handle the situation seems just as valid as Windows', but I thought > that I'd highlight the difference in case the team think it is worth > "correcting" Samba to make it ape a Windows server more closely. > > I have network packet captures which I think illustrate the difference > between Windows and Samba, which I can provide if anyone is interested Yes please, I would love to see the ethereal capture traces. If you can get them to me asap I'll make sure it gets fixed for 2.2.8. Thanks, Jeremy.