The SNIA Spec is wrong on this call and several others. I am working
on updating my web version of Paul Leach's Draft. Once I get it in
order I plan on posting it publicly . I plan is to make this a living
document that can be changed by the experts in the field (who every
they are).
4.2.14.8 SMB_QUERY_FILE_ALL_INFO
Data Block Encoding
=============================== Description
====================================
LARGE_INTEGER CreationTime; Time when file was created
LARGE_INTEGER LastAccessTime; Time of last file access
LARGE_INTEGER LastWriteTime; Time of last write to the file
LARGE_INTEGER ChangeTime Time when file was last changed
ULONG Attributes; File Attributes
LARGE_INTEGER AllocationSize Allocated size of the file in number of
bytes
LARGE_INTEGER EndofFile; Offset to the first free byte in the file
ULONG NumberOfLinks Number of hard links to the file
BOOLEAN DeletePending Indicates whether the file is marked for deletion
BOOLEAN Directory Indicates whether the file is a directory
USHORT Unknown Could be a padd value?
ULONG EASize Size of the file's extended attributes in bytes
ULONG FileNameLength Length of the file name in number of bytes
STRING FileName Name of the file
Hope this helps,
George
On Jun 21, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
I'm was looking at seeing if it would be possible to convert the
IndexNumber fields returned by SMB_QUERY_FILE_ALL_INFO to something
resembling a inode number (which might be good for helping us to
detect
hardlinks when unix extensions aren't enabled).
Looking at both the CIFS spec on SNIA's site and the packet traces via
wireshark, the fields returned by samba don't seem to exactly match
what's shown in the spec. For instance, I don't see any IndexNumber,
AccessFlags, or CurrentByteOffset fields in a SMB_QUERY_FILE_ALL_INFO
response.
The linux CIFS client seems to expect this and everything seems to
work
correctly, but I'm wondering why aren't those fields there? The list
of
fields in the "Data Block Encoding" should be the fields returned, in
that order, correct?
Am I misreading the spec?
Thanks!
--
Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
cifs-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
_______________________________________________
cifs-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
