On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:05:43 -0500
Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:51:54 -0400
> > Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:17:24PM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> >> > If others feel strongly about this, I don't mind changing it as
> >> > Christoph suggests but
> >> > - to samba people, "incrementing the rfc1001 length" would be more
> >> > recognizable (than opencoding the be32_add_cpu macro), and the
> >> > function name was
> >> > actually Jeff's suggestion which I liked.
> >>
> >> I don't mind the rfc1001 length per se.  What's totally braindead about
> >> this is having an absolutely trivial wrapper for incrementing a field,
> >> which has a different name than the field it increments.
> >>
> >> If you feel strongly about the rfc1001 length just rename the field.
> >>
> >
> > FWIW, the MS-SMB doc calls this value the "Stream Protocol Length". It
> > also mentions that this is actually a 24 bit field and the upper 8 bits
> > are supposed to be zeroed out.
> >
> > Should this wrapper check for values that violate that? A little
> > defensive coding in this area wouldn't hurt.
> 
> I agree, defensive code wouldn't hurt here. We do actually check IIRC
> the first byte of it (which acts as an "rfc1001" command code, where
> zero is what we want for most, in cifs_demultiplex_thread).   Of the
> next 3 bytes, which serve as a length field, old servers had a small
> maximum smb size, and thus only read two bytes, eventually some
> servers allowed you to use just over 64K, and Samba has allowed more
> than that for years.
> 

cifs_demultiplex_thread checks the first byte of data that is
*received*. It cannot check that what we're sending is within spec.
Perhaps this wrapper should.

-- 
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to