From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89DDF45029 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2025 12:55:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756644908; cv=none; b=AsRK71ttNDcXPjWEH+bSosKFTEoM3lh6pasAtauBw0p5JoQqycUDBTpjYIuvmBScvW0zGe8WG9fQhXUbFPd+xRD7fec/xnBweJND83v4qtYLdPMJPvK7tOoIHBTi7eD8qoyuDwU7BcuJysssUhSUJpaQFimBY36eW/EUbZstNBI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756644908; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kiFFe3mgqJBmcgGxYQ+jbqxD6G/Pr9zpMAMawQMGJiY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BpA+zJeDzL/XWOz02eKR5gdA6YXJeR3JCE17iY4RKMOAjERmkXRm1jtCzBZXdzuEZ/3QGrVcK9H0GcuC12+t50jGvgsZ68STvcvfUN4iDSH7KSXV6MLzW4kCfTyHzV64th9J45VW3arA8lqxCPT4FNQK7DLOrfM4WCd4cA3wOhk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=JfRmB8Tp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="JfRmB8Tp" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA734C4CEED; Sun, 31 Aug 2025 12:55:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1756644908; bh=kiFFe3mgqJBmcgGxYQ+jbqxD6G/Pr9zpMAMawQMGJiY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=JfRmB8TpA3Z/FAJIiangOZYzy6dcH4ltdL3P+tfstjy2cQcX3LMFI3WRrlIROr03J HUj9zUWENJekIHZP5WlbtbrO5GtwH1pCwPQj5dBh8JRK6DOhRwVfH2wRXqj6aXnvKN QU/jy5mO/HjIJNxzC74xwKfsGUv7cC6I2fk+hyDtvGX71EQYr9GuOH9tCo22oimpzw H/aIMk4SfymiMB1w7sqVJj1NuUD/DMfXGLK0eccbamz6qE05iuV48PPMayUw5EfNZ/ UIgrR0T8npNEIltObA3tHlyFXVVv29V+MPZgRtz34uwKMAwFtIF858BKzxm2Zkl0li 8wKTr1J1EEI9A== Received: by pali.im (Postfix) id 49731598; Sun, 31 Aug 2025 14:55:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2025 14:55:05 +0200 From: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= To: Ralph Boehme , smfrench , tom , CIFS Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: SMB2 DELETE vs UNLINK - TrackingID#2504090040009564 Message-ID: <20250831125505.4ggqt2bzz4rtzhqt@pali> References: <20250408224309.kscufcpvgiedx27v@pali> <6f5031e9-36d4-4521-a07a-6892cc5ce8a3@samba.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Hello Ralph, In [MS-SMB] 54.0 from 8/11/2025 in Change Tracking section http://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-smb/4caa15a3-700f-479f-90ce-53e2ecca945d is now documented that TRANS2_SET_FILE_INFORMATION supports FileDispositionInformationEx which allows to do POSIX unlink. And now also [MS-FSA] was updated for POSIX semantics support. In version 41.0 from 8/11/2025 is in Change Tracking section https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-fsa/78f36c85-889c-4804-ab11-6af3565e01b1 documented new volatile field DeleteUsingPosixSemantics and other sections were extended for POSIX support, including the description how to handle FileDispositionInformationEx requests. Pali On Tuesday 06 May 2025 19:00:17 Obaid Farooqi wrote: > Hi Ralph: > FileDispositionInformationEx, is for use locally, as documented in MS-FSCC. MS-SMB2 and MS-SMB both do not support it but Pali have been able to use MS-SMB pass-through mechanism to send this information level to the object store who acts on it and deletes the file. > MS-FSCC is already updated and you can see the changes in the current release. > MS-SMB was updated as follows: > " > <133> Section 3.3.5.10.6: > ... > If Information Level is set to an undefined value (0x0428) in the request, Windows Server 2022 > does not process the request but sends a success response. > " > The above statement is to document the pass through behavior that Pali was able to produce. This does not tell the whole story, so I have filed a bug to make it more complete. > > MS-FSA does not mention FileDispositionInformationEx. The reason is because FileDispositionInformationEx is local. But since Pali has been able to send FileDispositionInformationEx on the wire, I have filed a bug to add a section about FileDispositionInformationEx and information about POSIX semantics. > > Please let me know if this does not answer your question. > > Regards, > Obaid Farooqi > Escalation Engineer | Microsoft > > -----Original Message----- > From: Obaid Farooqi > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2025 6:07 AM > To: Ralph Boehme > Cc: smfrench ; tom ; Pali Rohár ; CIFS ; Microsoft Support > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: SMB2 DELETE vs UNLINK - TrackingID#2504090040009564 > > Hi Ralph, Tom: > I'll help you with this issue and will be in touch as soon as I have an answer. > > Regards, > Obaid Farooqi > Escalation Engineer | Microsoft > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Bowen > Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 8:57 PM > To: Ralph Boehme > Cc: smfrench ; tom ; Pali Rohár ; CIFS ; Microsoft Support > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: SMB2 DELETE vs UNLINK - TrackingID#2504090040009564 > > [DocHelp to bcc] > > Hi Ralph, > > Thanks for your question about SMB2. We've created case number 2504090040009564 to track this issue. One of our engineers will contact you soon. > > Best regards, > Michael Bowen > Microsoft Open Specifications Support > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Boehme > Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:51 PM > To: Interoperability Documentation Help > Cc: smfrench ; tom ; Pali Rohár ; CIFS > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: SMB2 DELETE vs UNLINK > > Hello dochelp, > > it seems the updates for POSIX unlink and rename made it into MS-FSCC > > > > but I don't see accompanying updates to MS-FSA and, if supported over SMB, MS-SMB2. > > Is this coming? If this is supported over SMB by Windows it is not sufficient to have it burried in MS-FSCC. :) > > Thanks! > -slow > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: SMB2 DELETE vs UNLINK > Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 00:43:09 +0200 > From: Pali Rohár > To: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org > CC: Tom Talpey , Steve French , Paulo Alcantara , Namjae Jeon , Ralph Boehme > > On Friday 27 December 2024 19:51:30 Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Friday 27 December 2024 11:43:58 Tom Talpey wrote: > > > On 12/27/2024 11:32 AM, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > On Friday 27 December 2024 11:21:49 Tom Talpey wrote: > > > > > Feel free to raise the issue yourself! Simply email "dochelp@microsoft.com". > > > > > Send as much supporting evidence as you have gathered. > > > > > > > > > > Tom. > > > > > > > > Ok. I can do it. Should I include somebody else into copy? > > > > > > Sure, you may include me, tell them I sent you. :) > > > > > > Tom. > > > > > > > Just note for others that I have already sent email to dochelp. > > Hello, I have good news! > > dochelp on 04/07/2025 updated MS-FSCC documentation and now it contains the structures to issue the POSIX UNLINK and RENAME operations. > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-fscc/f1f88b22-15c6-4081-a899-788511ae2ed9 > MS-FSCC 7 Change Tracking > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-fscc/2e860264-018a-47b3-8555-565a13b35a45 > MS-FSCC 2.4.12 FileDispositionInformationEx has FILE_DISPOSITION_POSIX_SEMANTICS > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-fscc/4217551b-d2c0-42cb-9dc1-69a716cf6d0c > MS-FSCC 2.4.43 FileRenameInformationEx has FILE_RENAME_REPLACE_IF_EXISTS > + FILE_RENAME_POSIX_SEMANTICS > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-fscc/ebc7e6e5-4650-4e54-b17c-cf60f6fbeeaa > MS-FSCC 2.5.1 FileFsAttributeInformation has FILE_SUPPORTS_POSIX_UNLINK_RENAME > > So now both classic Windows DELETE and POSIX UNLINK is available and documented.