Thank you for your diligence on this Bill and the answers you have
provided. I have some responses inline below.
On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:07 AM, Bill Wesse wrote:
Is #3 actually correct behavior that other servers should implement?
If so, can the cases where share modes are not enforced be enumerated
in the documentation?
Response:
#3 is correct behavior. Sending an SMB_COM_TRANSACTION2 request for
SET_PATH_INFORMATION with SMB_INFO_PASSTHROUGH +
FileEndOfFileInformation is
functionally equivalent to a remote call to NtSetInformationFile.
NtSetInformationFile sends an IRP_MJ_SET_INFORMATION request to the
file
system driver in question; this does not involve the usual I/O Manager
ShareMode checks.
I share the same sentiment as Zach on this behavior, but it is
definitely useful to know how windows handles this. Are there plans
for this to be documented anywhere or does it receive documentation
exemption since this is passthrough-speceific?
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
======================================================================
Question:
If a client can send a particular info level and windows implements
it, then we have a compatibility problem if we choose not to support
it. What I would really like to know is if other SMB implementations
need to circumvent share-mode checks for this pass through level (and
maybe others?).
Response:
This should be the case for all supported SMB_INFO_PASSTHROUGH
levels, as they
run through the same essential logic.
However, I have additional testing to perform before I can
completely confirm
this.
I am interested to know the results of your testing. I believe there
are some tests in RAW-OPLOCKS that use the rename passthrough level to
test oplocks, but implicitly rely on share modes not being enforced
for the rename passthrough. RAW-OPLOCK-BATCH19, 20 and 21 are good
ones to look at.
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
======================================================================
Question:
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?
Response:
The WordCount/ByteCount truncation against the Dos INVALID_LEVEL
error problem
(trans2setpathinfo_against_win7_2.pcap) you saw did not reproduce
with my
clients (who succeeded against the call).
I have attached a zip file with your trace
(trans2setpathinfo_against_win7_2.pcap), and my equivalent trace
(test_trans2setpathinfo_Win7.pcap). Mine does not have that second
Set EOF call. Do I need a newer build of smbtorture (my current one
from you is samba.2009.12.01.tar.gz)?
In comparing the pcaps, it does indeed appear that the version of
smbtorture you're running doesn't include the most recent version of
RAW-SFILEIFNO-END-OF-FILE. Packet 54 in your trace corresponds to
packet 33 in my trace which is sending the SNIA CIFS EOF level rather
than the passthrough. Packet 39 in my trace is the setpathinfo EOF
passthrough level that is actually getting the strange error, and
there is no corresponding packet in your trace.
I'll get you the most recent code drop in a private channel.
-Tim
_______________________________________________
cifs-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
