[cifs-protocol] fields returned by SMB_QUERY_FILE_ALL_INFO call

[George Colley]

The SNIA Spec is wrong on this call and several others. I am working  
on updating my web version of Paul Leach's Draft. Once I get it in  
order I plan on posting it publicly . I plan is to make this a living  
document that can be changed by the experts in the field (who every  
they are).




4.2.14.8 SMB_QUERY_FILE_ALL_INFO

Data Block Encoding
===============================	Description
====================================
LARGE_INTEGER CreationTime;	Time when file was created
LARGE_INTEGER LastAccessTime;	Time of last file access
LARGE_INTEGER LastWriteTime;	Time of last write to the file
LARGE_INTEGER ChangeTime	Time when file was last changed
ULONG Attributes;	File Attributes
LARGE_INTEGER AllocationSize	Allocated size of the file in number of  
bytes
LARGE_INTEGER EndofFile;	Offset to the first free byte in the file
ULONG NumberOfLinks	Number of hard links to the file
BOOLEAN DeletePending	Indicates whether the file is marked for deletion
BOOLEAN Directory	Indicates whether the file is a directory
USHORT Unknown	Could be a padd value?
ULONG EASize	Size of the file's extended attributes in bytes
ULONG FileNameLength	Length of the file name in number of bytes
STRING FileName	Name of the file


Hope this helps,
George
On Jun 21, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:

> I'm was looking at seeing if it would be possible to convert the
> IndexNumber fields returned by SMB_QUERY_FILE_ALL_INFO to something
> resembling a inode number (which might be good for helping us to  
> detect
> hardlinks when unix extensions aren't enabled).
>
> Looking at both the CIFS spec on SNIA's site and the packet traces via
> wireshark, the fields returned by samba don't seem to exactly match
> what's shown in the spec. For instance, I don't see any IndexNumber,
> AccessFlags, or CurrentByteOffset fields in a SMB_QUERY_FILE_ALL_INFO
> response.
>
> The linux CIFS client seems to expect this and everything seems to  
> work
> correctly, but I'm wondering why aren't those fields there? The list  
> of
> fields in the "Data Block Encoding" should be the fields returned, in
> that order, correct?
>
> Am I misreading the spec?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- 
> Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com>
> _______________________________________________
> cifs-protocol mailing list
> cifs-protocol at cifs.org
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol

-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed