Bug 8110 - content file size problem
content file size problem
Status: NEW
Product: Samba 3.5
Classification: Unclassified
Component: File services
3.5.6
All All
: P5 normal
: ---
Assigned To: Volker Lendecke
Samba QA Contact
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-04-27 09:25 UTC by Ovidiu
Modified: 2011-05-02 20:27 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments
windows server 2003 as server - windows xp as client (228.89 KB, text/plain)
2011-04-27 09:56 UTC, Ovidiu
no flags Details
windows xp as client - freebsd as server (267.77 KB, text/plain)
2011-04-27 09:56 UTC, Ovidiu
no flags Details
server 2003 (61.58 KB, application/octet-stream)
2011-04-27 10:29 UTC, Ovidiu
no flags Details
freebsd (79.25 KB, application/octet-stream)
2011-04-27 10:29 UTC, Ovidiu
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ovidiu 2011-04-27 09:25:24 UTC
I Use Samba Server 3.5.6 on FreeBSD 8.2. My clients are Windows Xp, Windows 7 workstations

I created a new empty file on Samba share from Windows explorer. I write something in the file and I saved the file and it's show me 52Bytes. I reopened the file and I added something new. I saved it again, and the file size it's still 52Bytes until i give a refresh ( F5)

I Tryed with windows registry editor, but nothing

KEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Update\UpdateMode
1=>0
Comment 1 Ovidiu 2011-04-27 09:56:27 UTC
Created attachment 6427 [details]
windows server 2003 as server - windows xp as client

windows server 2003 as server - windows xp as client
Comment 2 Ovidiu 2011-04-27 09:56:44 UTC
Created attachment 6428 [details]
windows xp as client - freebsd as server

windows xp as client - freebsd as server
Comment 3 Ovidiu 2011-04-27 10:29:27 UTC
Created attachment 6429 [details]
server 2003
Comment 4 Ovidiu 2011-04-27 10:29:57 UTC
Created attachment 6430 [details]
freebsd
Comment 5 Volker Lendecke 2011-04-29 21:24:09 UTC
Just to let you know: I've reproduced it. Working on it.

Volker
Comment 6 Ovidiu 2011-04-29 21:46:54 UTC
Thank you very much

I installed Samba34 with UFS ACLs and this issue is not present, everything seems to be ok.
The refresh issue appears on samba35, useing ZFS ACLs NFSv4

Same FreeBSD 8.2 server, Windows Xp and 7 clients

One more thing.. Ii saw a difference in how samba and windows are ordering permissions. there is an incompatibility. maybe you can fix this too

The permissions on <File name> are incorrectly ordered, which may cause some entries to be ineffective. Press OK to continue and sort the permissions correctly, or Cancel to reset the permissions.
Comment 7 Ovidiu 2011-04-29 21:49:06 UTC
Thank you very much

I installed Samba34 with UFS ACLs and this issue is not present, everything seems to be ok.
The refresh issue appears on samba35, useing ZFS ACLs NFSv4

Same FreeBSD 8.2 server, Windows Xp and 7 clients

One more thing.. Ii saw a difference in how samba and windows are ordering permissions. there is an incompatibility. maybe you can fix this too

The permissions on <File name> are incorrectly ordered, which may cause some entries to be ineffective. Press OK to continue and sort the permissions correctly, or Cancel to reset the permissions.
Comment 8 Ovidiu 2011-04-29 21:58:12 UTC
Thank you very much

I installed Samba34 with UFS ACLs and this issue is not present, everything seems to be ok.
The refresh issue appears on samba35, useing ZFS ACLs NFSv4

Same FreeBSD 8.2 server, Windows Xp and 7 clients

One more thing.. Ii saw a difference in how samba and windows are ordering permissions. there is an incompatibility. maybe you can fix this too

The permissions on <File name> are incorrectly ordered, which may cause some entries to be ineffective. Press OK to continue and sort the permissions correctly, or Cancel to reset the permissions.
Comment 9 Volker Lendecke 2011-05-02 20:27:31 UTC
Unfortunately the reproducer I told about on irc was bogus. It was against a machine I had tested lower-level protocols (max protocol = lanman2) against. XP does not do notifies at all against this protocol, so this could not have worked. I tried every single combination I could find, but I did not succeed to reproduce it again.

Not sure how to proceed here, sorry.