Sorry about that - I don't actually have the test machines (I couldn't find a WindowsCE machine to test with) and the user didn't say what the test program was - but I think it was the "dir" command. I will ask him.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Hongwei Sun <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve, > > Any update ? > > Thanks! > > Hongwei > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hongwei Sun > Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 4:26 PM > To: 'Steve French' > Cc: Edgar Olougouna; [email protected]; [email protected]; MSSolve Case > Email > Subject: RE: [REG:111081664438980] RE: [cifs-protocol] Level 257 FindFirst > rejected by some Windows servers even though NTLM > > Steve, > > What program or API are you using on Windows client to test FIND_FIRST2 > command ? Have you observed that the same Windows client sends the > different information level while connecting to different server ? The > client (redirector) maps the application-provided [MS-FSCC] information > levels to a SMB information Level. SMB_FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO is > mapped to FileBothDirectoryInformation passed from the application. I just > want to check to see how this is passed from the application. > > Thanks! > > Hongwei > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve French [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 4:23 PM > To: Hongwei Sun > Cc: Edgar Olougouna; [email protected]; [email protected]; MSSolve Case > Email > Subject: Re: [REG:111081664438980] RE: [cifs-protocol] Level 257 FindFirst > rejected by some Windows servers even though NTLM > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Hongwei Sun <[email protected]> wrote: >> Steve, >> >> Windows CE is not within the scope of protocol documentation, such as >> MS-SMB and MS-CIFS. Therefore it is understandable that it doesn't behave >> as specified in the protocol documents. > > This is more about what Windows clients do not about the WindowsCE server. > > Clearly windows clients works (to WindowsCE server) - and it appears it is > because they choose levels carefully to avoid the WindowsCE server problems > > instead of > FIND_FILE_DIRECTORY_INFO (level 257) > nor > FIND_FILE_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO (258) > nor > FIND_FILE_ID_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO (262) > > Windows clients (XP, Vista, etc) know enough to send > SMB_FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO (260) > > which doesn't make sense since FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO requires the > server to return the short name (which no longer seems relevant to windows > clients but they are requesting it - even of WindowsCE). > > Windows is NOT returning operation not supported (or the eqiuvalent) to the > application, rather it is selectively choosing to use level 260 (rather than > the 3 other more logical find levels) > > So the question is - how does Windows (clients) determine which level to > request on FindFirst - in particular when not to use 257, 258 or > 262 and fall back to 260? > >> As far as Windows systems, as per 2.2.2.3.1 MS-CIFS, for Windows NT >> and earlier, the Find information levels supported are clearly >> specified >> >> SMB_INFO_STANDARD 0x0001 >> (LANMAN2.0) >> SMB_INFO_QUERY_EA_SIZE 0x0002 >> (LANMAN2.0) >> SMB_INFO_QUERY_EAS_FROM_LIST 0x0003 (LANMAN2.0) >> SMB_FIND_FILE_DIRECTORY_INFO 0x0101 (NT LANMAN) >> SMB_FIND_FILE_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO 0x0102 (NT LANMAN) >> SMB_FIND_FILE_NAMES_INFO 0x0103 (NT LANMAN) >> SMB_FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO 0x0104 (NT LANMAN) >> >> For Windows 2000 and later , in addition to the levels above , the >> following levels are added as per MS-SMB 2.2.6.1.1 >> >> SMB_FIND_FILE_ID_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO 0x0105 (NT LANMAN) >> SMB_FIND_FILE_ID_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO 0x0106 (NT LANMAN) >> >> As per 2.2.8 MS-CIFS, The client MUST map the application-provided >> [MS-FSCC] information levels to SMB information Levels. For all other >> [MS-FSCC] information levels, the client MUST fail the request with >> STATUS_NOT_SUPPORTED. In some case, the client MUST send a fixed level. >> For example, a client that has not negotiated long names support MUST >> request only SMB_INFO_STANDARD. >> >> Please let us know if you have more questions. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Hongwei >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve French >> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 4:54 PM >> To: Edgar Olougouna >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] Level 257 FindFirst rejected by some >> Windows servers even though NTLM >> >> It looks like Windows CE takes (only?) level 260 but I can't easily prove it >> without access to a test system (I just have some customer traces) - so how >> does Windows clients (Windows XP/Vista/7 etc.) determine which FindFirst >> level to send to these given that the Microsoft server in this case is >> reporting NT Find and NT SMB support but in practice not supporting most >> FindFirst levels. >> >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Edgar Olougouna <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> [Dochelp to bcc] >>> >>> Steve, >>> >>> One of our engineers will follow-up soon on this inquiry. The case number >>> is 111081664438980. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Edgar >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Steve French [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:35 PM >>> To: Interoperability Documentation Help >>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Subject: Level 257 FindFirst rejected by some Windows servers even >>> though NTLM >>> >>> A user sent me a trace of FindFirst level 257 (0x101 ) failing to >>> Windows CE with NT Status: STATUS_INVALID_LEVEL (0xc0000148) >>> >>> even though dialect negotiated was NT LM 012 and that dialect is the only >>> prereq listed in MS-SMB for the level (see page 64). >>> >>> How can the client determine under what condition that the server >>> does not support that level - - and what level to fall back (or move up to >>> higher level)? Level 257 is pretty basic. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> >> Steve >> _______________________________________________ >> cifs-protocol mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol >> >> > > > > -- > Thanks, > > Steve > > -- Thanks, Steve _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
