[cifs-protocol] [Pfif] SMB1 Trans2SetPathInfo() FileEndOfFileInformation is not enforcing share modes
Bill Wesse
billwe at microsoft.com
Tue Dec 1 12:12:44 MST 2009
> 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.prouty at isilon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:34 PM
To: Tim Prouty
Cc: Bill Wesse; pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at 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.
More information about the cifs-protocol
mailing list