> 1. Packet 40 appears to have the WordCount and ByteCount truncated, > making the packet smaller than normal minimum size of 35? Is this > intended behavior that other servers should implement?
This is a surprise - I have never seen an SMB error packet without WordCount and ByteCount. I will take this into account once I get my test code running - which will be necessary to reproduce the missing WordCount / ByteCount (this looks like a bug to me, but I will have to dig deeper). Regards, Bill Wesse MCSE, MCTS / Senior Escalation Engineer, US-CSS DSC PROTOCOL TEAM 8055 Microsoft Way Charlotte, NC 28273 TEL: +1(980) 776-8200 CELL: +1(704) 661-5438 FAX: +1(704) 665-9606 -----Original Message----- From: Tim Prouty [mailto:tim.pro...@isilon.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:34 PM To: Tim Prouty Cc: Bill Wesse; p...@tridgell.net; cifs-proto...@samba.org Subject: Re: [Pfif] SMB1 Trans2SetPathInfo() FileEndOfFileInformation is not enforcing share modes On Nov 30, 2009, at 6:06 PM, Tim Prouty wrote: > Hi Bill, > > I have done some more investigation on this issue, particularly around > doing a Trans2SetPathInfo() with the documented > FileEndOfFileInformation (0x104) level. It returns what I would > expect to be an acceptable error for an unknown info level. I have > attached a trace that shows this being done against a win7 server, but > I have a question about what the server is returning. The packets of > interest are 39/40: > > 1. Packet 40 appears to have the WordCount and ByteCount truncated, > making the packet smaller than normal minimum size of 35? Is this > intended behavior that other servers should implement? > > Additionally a DOS Error is returned instead of a standard NT_STATUS > error. MS-CIFS does say that a DOS error or an NT_STATUS error may be > returned, but I don't see any indication in the documentation of when > a DOS error should be returned instead of an NT_STATUS error. Is it > possible to make this explicit in the docs or is this a case where > it's purposefully left ambiguous? > > Thanks! > > -Tim Here's the pcap referenced in the previous email. _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list cifs-protocol@cifs.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol