[cifs-protocol] Status: SRX091216600027 [MS-ADTS] 3.1.1.2.3 msDS-IntId not always present
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
Thu Dec 17 12:45:36 MST 2009
Hi Bill,
Thank you for your update.
No worries – I am busy implementing it Samba so…
Btw, one interesting observation during my tests – adding ‘msDS-IntId’ on classSchema object passes nicely during object creation. After that, trying to modify this attribute value leads to “CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION”. And I am wondering – what is the meaning of ‘msDS-IntId’ when used in a classSchema object
BR,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:06 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; abartlet at samba.org; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091216600027 [MS-ADTS] 3.1.1.2.3 msDS-IntId not always present
Good morning Kamen – I have filed a Technical Document Issue (TDI) against [MS-ADTS] concerning the lack of msDS-IntId on attributeSchema objects per the document description (3.1.1.2.3).
While this is pending action, I will study our implementation – I don’t expect to be able to provide any feedback until early next week, given the number of objects involved.
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
From: Bill Wesse
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:52 AM
To: 'Kamen Mazdrashki'
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; abartlet at samba.org; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091216600027 [MS-ADTS] 3.1.1.2.3 msDS-IntId not always present (SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation)
Thanks for the update Kamen – I have created the following case to track our work. Unless you think otherwise, I will archive the old case (SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation)).
SRX091216600027 [MS-ADTS] 3.1.1.2.3 msDS-IntId not always present
I expect to be able to begin work later today – or by tomorrow morning at the latest.
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:08 PM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; abartlet at samba.org; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Hi Bill,
Finally I have a “msDS-IntId” attribute.
You can find the test in “source4/lib/ldb/tests/python/ldap_schema.py” python script.
You can execute the script from ‘source4’ directory as follows:
lib/ldb/tests/python/ldap_schema.py -UAdministrator%password w2k8
This test is only in my branch thus you can download it from (sorry for the inconvenience):
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git/snapshot/1de38d8251c6df7fb23d68033f57c1f8f53bcded.tar.gz
According to MS-ADTS http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc223202%28PROT.13%29.aspx,
msDS-IntId is “Present on attributeSchema <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221662%28PROT.13%29.aspx> objects added when forest functional level is DS_BEHAVIOR_WIN2003 or greater with FLAG_SCHEMA_BASE_OBJECT not present in systemFlags <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc220919%28PROT.13%29.aspx> ”.
However, when running the test against w2k8 there are lot of attributes that does not obey this rule.
Please see attached file “w2k8_msDS-IntId.txt”.
At first I thought that those attributes has attributeIDs that can be encoded/decoded using ‘default prefixMap’.
After examining the list though, it turns out this is not the case for majority of those attributes.
Please see attached file “not_in_default_prefixMap.txt” for a list of those attributes.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the documentation?
I need a ‘steady’ rule when to create ‘msDS-IntId’ value for an attribute in the schema.
Is there any other rule to be applied?
I need to note here that those attributes comes from w2k8 default provisioning.
Any newly added attributes strictly obey the abovementioned rule (I found no way
to add an attribute with FLAG_SCHEMA_BASE_OBJECT flag set though).
CU,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:58 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Thank you – I am quite unhappy with myself for not seeing this also.
I will certainly keep the issue open!
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 4:13 PM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Hi Bill,
Good news – Metze resolved the issue with “not recognized ATTIDs”.
It was in front of me all the time I can’t believe I’ve missed that (as it turns out, reading matters:-)):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc223224%28PROT.13%29.aspx
Could you please leave the issue open for as long as I make a test to verify, that rules for msDS-IntId
described on the following page holds true?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc223202%28PROT.13%29.aspx
I just need to be sure, that if FLAG_SCHEMA_BASE_OBJECT is not set, then Windows uses msDS-IntId.
BR,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:45 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Kamen - as it turns out, I will be rebuilding my VM host, more’s the pity. Also, I did track the data structures through smbtorture, [MS-DRSR] and the 2008 R2 sources / idl; they match (as expected) – which is good news.
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
From: Bill Wesse
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:02 AM
To: 'Kamen Mazdrashki'
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Well, I certainly hesitate to suggest that – but felt it appropriate to examine smbtorture enough to make sure I didn’t miss anything. The binary data looks good, of course (I notice the buffer size to dump I put in ndr_print_drsuapi_DsReplicaAttributeCtr was more than needed, as I neglected to accommodate the fact that the drsuapi_DsReplicaAttribute’s were not contiguous with it).
I am preparing to rebuild my Hyper-V server; something has gone very wrong with com port to named pipe connections, so I am unable to run a live debug on the R2 server. Hopefully I can fix this by reinstalling Hyper-V. If not, I will upgrade the OS to 2008 R2 (I am currently running the VM’s on 2008). That will stall me for most of the day.
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 7:41 PM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Hi Bill,
If I understood you correctly, you are suggesting that NDR decoding code doesn’t work out well against w2k8-r2, right?
I was thinking for sometime the same thing…
What puzzles me is that this code works great against w2k3-r3.
And also, against w2k8-r2 all drsuapi_DsReplicaAttribute are OK, except for the newly added attributes.
I will try to compare binary data received from w2k3 and w2k8 to see what is different.
Thanks for your effort.
I will try to come back to you as soon as possible.
CU,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 11:01 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
…that is, I was unable to find anything in the 2008 R2 sources that did anything special to drsuapi_DsReplicaAttribute’s…
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
From: Bill Wesse
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 3:58 PM
To: 'Kamen Mazdrashki'
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Thanks – I have the buffer dump routines working, but have more work to do (search for ‘dump_buffer’ in the attached .c file – I modified librpc\gen_ndr\ndr_drsuapi.c).
The buffer decoding looks good, but I think I will need to go closer to the decode point, and dump it from there. I was unable to find anything that did special cooking on drsuapi_DsReplicaAttribute’s.
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 11:50 AM
To: Bill Wesse
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Please, let me know if you will need any help in this?
BR,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 4:10 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
I am back on track – thanks for your concern. My next step is to add some hex dump capabilities to the relevant sections of smbtorture.
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:41 PM
To: Bill Wesse
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Hi Bill,
No worries.
I truly hope you will be back on track on Monday.
Thanks again for your persistence in resolving the issue I have.
Sincerely,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 7:16 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
By the way – I won’t be able to accomplish any more until Monday. I am going oof for the rest of the day. Got the flu shot yesterday, having a reaction. Nothing serious, thankfully; but I am rather symptomatic, and truly don’t want to take any chances at my age (pushing 60…).
Thank you for your patience.
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 10:44 AM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Hi Bill,
Sorry for the delay.
I wanted to make sure this build is working.
You can downalod tar.gz archive of Samba4 snapshot from the link below.
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba.git/snapshot/c9df4a3c28d21e8acc9df46def8805e56eb8b4ce.tar.gz
BR,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 3:21 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Excellent – and thanks! Also – what functional level is your 2008 R2 domain at?
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 6:47 AM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Hi Bill,
I think the version of Samba4 you got is very old one.
Unfortunately, latest alpha released does not contain my patches also.
I will send you shortly an URL to a tgz archive you can download and test with.
It will contain latest Samba4 patches.
Thanks,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 6:58 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Thanks for the info. I have Ubuntu 9.04 running, with samba4 built, using samba-4.0.0alpha3.tar.gz, since the git port is not available from our corporate network. Is that the correct build? Gzip complained about the newer ones on ftp.samba.org.
My smbtorture test returns the following (no events on the DC worth noting):
dcerpc_drsuapi_DsGetNCChanges failed – NT_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER
I think I might have the wrong samba4 version – what should be ‘extended_op’ is replaced by ‘unknown4’.
replica_flags : 0x00200870 (2099312)
0: DRSUAPI_DS_REPLICA_NEIGHBOUR_PARTIAL_ATTRIBUTE_SET
max_object_count : 0x00000192 (402)
max_ndr_size : 0x000622c4 (402116)
unknown4 : 0x00000000 (0)
Your logs show something like this:
replica_flags : 0x00200870 (2099312)
0: DRSUAPI_DS_REPLICA_NEIGHBOUR_PARTIAL_ATTRIBUTE_SET
max_object_count : 0x00000192 (402)
max_ndr_size : 0x000622c4 (402116)
extended_op : DRSUAPI_EXOP_NONE (0x0)
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 9:42 AM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Hi Bill,
I am working under Ubuntu 9.04.
And I am using latest Samba4 – you need to build from source.
Please, look at http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Using_Git_for_Samba_Development
for instructions how to get sources and build Samba.
You could also find a nice tutorial from Tridge at:
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2009-September/066753.html
You should only perform steps 1) and 2). E.g.:
1. Get latest git tree:
git clone git://git.samba.org/samba.git samba4
2. build samba:
cd samba4/source4
./autogen.sh
./configure.developer --prefix=$HOME/prefix.s4
make
You don’t need to install it, as you don’t need running Samba4 in order to run smbtorture.
After build is done, you may run:
bin/smbtorture -Uadministrator%333 --configfile=/usr/local/samba/etc/drsuapi.conf ncacn_ip_tcp:10.191.10.229[print,seal] RPC-DSSYNC --option= dssync:highest_usn=24608 -d1 >RPC-DSSYNC-w2k8.log
In the abovementioned case, I am passing fairly high Usn number to start at,
otherwise log file gets pretty big.
Oh, and if you are not familiar with Ubuntu /recently I wasn’t familiar with it myself :-)/,
you may install required packages with ‘apt-get’ utility:
sudo apt-get install [package-name]
for example:
sudo apt-get install git-core
in order to install git.
BR,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:54 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Hi Kamen; actually, I am not 100% sure I haven’t reproduced the replication problem. I was a bit sparse on my description of the debug, simply because I am (so far) unable to track the data all the way to the replication partner. This is due to some ugly problems with debugging, including inpage errors in the time travel debug dump file (Murphy’s Law was in effect all last week, and I didn’t want to bother you with my troubles).
I certainly welcome your input on the setup for smbtorture / Samba build. Are you using samba-3.4.3 (http://samba.org/samba/ftp/stable/samba-3.4.3.tar.gz), or an older version? Also, I would prefer to use the same Linux distribution you are testing with (please advise…).
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 3:11 PM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Hi Bill,
I am truly surprised you can’t reproduce the strange behavior during Win-to-Win replication.
Please, let me know if I can help you with running Samba’s tests?
Basically, after building Samba, you just need to execute:
bin/smbtorture -Uadministrator%333 --configfile=/usr/local/samba/etc/drsuapi.conf ncacn_ip_tcp:10.191.10.229[print,seal] RPC-DSSYNC --option= dssync:highest_usn=24608 -d1 >RPC-DSSYNC-w2k8.log
I am sending you the conf file here again, so you could have it at hand.
Thanks,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 7:15 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
I have completed the debug, and find that the attid’s are being constructed per the algorithm (and per the entries in the prefixMap table). I cannot account for your results using just R2 (which is using DRS_MSG_GETCHGREPLY_V7, no surprise here). Hence, I am setting up to run the tests again using smbtorture. It may take me a few days to build &stabilize that, as I have not had previous occasion to use the torture tests.
Very strange!
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
From: Bill Wesse
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:08 PM
To: 'Kamen Mazdrashki'
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Glad to hear your efforts are going well.
I did my testing on 2008 R2 (release build 6.1.7600); after some nasty snags (involving, ugh, hardware problems), I am now working through the replication data on both DC partners.
Hopefully the mysterious values are artifacts of the beta (if that is what you are using), or some surprise in struct versioning (I haven’t gotten near this yet).
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:52 AM
To: Bill Wesse
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
No worries,
I’ve finished my implementation and I will test it in following few days.
I think the part with OID-to-ATTID/ATTID-to-OID is well encapsulated, so I just have put what are to find out about Win2k8 behavior.
Thanks again for your efforts.
BR,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 3:34 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
I’ve run into several snags on the debug, and may have to rebuild my Hyper-V host (I hope not). Sorry for the delay.
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
From: Bill Wesse
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:28 AM
To: 'Kamen Mazdrashki'
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
I appreciate your comments – I will update you later today or tomorrow AM with my results.
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:54 PM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Hi Bill,
Thanks a lot for your efforts.
I am crossing my fingers for you to not have hard time finding what the issue might be.
Regards,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:56 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: Status: SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Good afternoon Kamen – I have again reviewed the prefixMap code, and tested replication between 2 2008R2 DC’s (VMs). The replication succeeded, and I am setting up for a debug of the prefixMap code &replication endpoints.
I hope to finish that tomorrow (each run will require me to restore my virtual hard disks, so it may take several tries before I validate both ends of the replication).
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
From: Bill Wesse
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:25 AM
To: 'Kamen Mazdrashki'
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Thanks – I wanted to be as complete as possible. I am currently setting up several R2 VM’s to duplicate the problem. There shouldn’t be anything different about ATTID en/decoding, from what I see in the code (I must have missed something – which is what I intend to find out today).
I will keep you updated!
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 5:41 PM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Hi Bill,
Wow, it seem you have made quite a test tool for prefixMap.
And to answer your question – I am doing replication from Win2k8-R2.
Yes, you are right about the last three lines in make_attid() implementation. I just needed low-word of ATTID as I haven’t implemented full prefixMap functionality – i.e. there is no prefixMap at all.
So I used this script to encode/decode values in the log file “one the fly” – just a quick conversion.
I found Python to be quite handy in this – just open Python console and use those helper functions quickly.
Frankly said, I didn’t expected to have any problems with encoding/decoding ATTIDs – given the fact you have released such a detailed description of the algorithm used.
ATTIDs you have made using your tool are quite correct. Except that Win2k8 doesn’t behave that way.
I am really expecting that MS dev team have made little bit different implementation in Win2k8 for some reason.
Quite curious what the reason may be though :-)
Regards,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 7:31 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
This is more than interesting. I have verified that the drsuapi_DsReplicaAttribute.attid values from the RPC-DSSYNC-w2k8.log.doc file are definitely wrong. Neither the upperWord or lowerWord values are what they should be in the Win2k8 log.
One important question: are you replicating to 2008R2, or from it (if from, there is something drastically wrong with R2, and I will need to get this in front of both our document &product development teams).
I have verified the correct values are generated for MakeAttid() and OidFromAttid(), using C# code (see attachment + below info on PrefixMapper).
PrefixTable.cs: public Oid OidFromAttid(UInt32 AttrTyp,…)
Oid.cs: the following is called from the Oid constructor (public Oid(String stringOid))
private Byte[ ] StringOidToBytes(String Text, out int PrefixLength, out UInt16 LastSubID)
(MakeAttid occurs in PrefixTable.Instance.Add(…))
I am not very good with Python; however, the last three lines of make_attid(oid) (prefixmap.py) don’t seem right to me:
upperWord = 'prefixIndex'
attid = '%04X' % lowerWord # attr := upperWord * 65536 + lowerWord
return (oidPrefix, attid)
Here is what should be in RPC-DSSYNC-w2k8.log.doc:
attid: 0x8933929C -> should be 0x48230001
id_prefix: 0x00004823
bin_oid: 0x2A817A + 01 ('1.2.250.1')
attid_loword: 0x0001
attid: 0x87159F45 -> should be 0x48230082
id_prefix: 0x00004823
bid_oid: 0x2A817A + 8102 ('1.2.250.130')
attid_loword: 0x0082
attid: 0x85C6D3B9 -> should be 0x0DC78002
id_prefix: 0x00000DC7
bin_oid: 0x2A817A81 + 8002 ('1.2.250.16386')
attid_loword: 0x8002
attid: 0x9E0386A9 -> should be 0x3C608002
id_prefix: 0x00003C60
bin_oid: 0x2A817A8180 + 8002 ('1.2.250.2097154')
attid_loword: 0x8002
PrefixMapper is a console program (no command arguments; a Visual Studio 2008 project). Sample output is below.
PrefixTable (Initial)
---------------------
Index prefixIndex prefixString
----- ----------- ------------------------------------
[0] 0x00000000 55 04
[1] 0x00000001 55 06
[2] 0x00000002 2A 86 48 86 F7 14 01 02
[3] 0x00000003 2A 86 48 86 F7 14 01 03
[4] 0x00000004 60 86 48 01 65 02 02 01
[5] 0x00000005 60 86 48 01 65 02 02 03
[6] 0x00000006 60 86 48 01 65 02 01 05
[7] 0x00000007 60 86 48 01 65 02 01 04
[8] 0x00000008 55 05
[9] 0x00000009 2A 86 48 86 F7 14 01 04
[10] 0x0000000A 2A 86 48 86 F7 14 01 05
[11] 0x00000013 09 92 26 89 93 F2 2C 64
[12] 0x00000014 60 86 48 01 86 F8 42 03
[13] 0x00000015 09 92 26 89 93 F2 2C 64 01
[14] 0x00000016 60 86 48 01 86 F8 42 03 01
[15] 0x00000017 2A 86 48 86 F7 14 01 05 B6 58
[16] 0x00000018 55 15
[17] 0x00000019 55 12
[18] 0x0000001A 55 14
Oids
----
Added: 1.2.250.1
Construction: StringOid
Value: 1.2.250.1
Binary: 2A 81 7A 01
Prefix: 2A 81 7A
Postfix: 01
Description: 0x2A817A + 01 ('1.2.250.1')
PrefixLen: 3
PrefixIndex: 0x677D
LastSubID: 0x0001
AttId: 0x677D0001
Found: 1.2.250.130
Construction: StringOid
Value: 1.2.250.130
Binary: 2A 81 7A 81 02
Prefix: 2A 81 7A
Postfix: 81 02
Description: 0x2A817A + 8102 ('1.2.250.130')
PrefixLen: 3
PrefixIndex: 0x677D
LastSubID: 0x0082
AttId: 0x677D0082
Added: 1.2.250.16386
Construction: StringOid
Value: 1.2.250.16386
Binary: 2A 81 7A 81 80 02
Prefix: 2A 81 7A 81
Postfix: 80 02
Description: 0x2A817A81 + 8002 ('1.2.250.16386')
PrefixLen: 4
PrefixIndex: 0x68C3
LastSubID: 0x8002
AttId: 0x68C38002
Added: 1.2.250.2097154
Construction: StringOid
Value: 1.2.250.2097154
Binary: 2A 81 7A 81 80 80 02
Prefix: 2A 81 7A 81 80
Postfix: 80 02
Description: 0x2A817A8180 + 8002 ('1.2.250.2097154')
PrefixLen: 5
PrefixIndex: 0x49D1
LastSubID: 0x8002
AttId: 0x49D18002
PrefixTable (Final)
-------------------
Index prefixIndex prefixString
----- ----------- ------------------------------------
[0] 0x00000000 55 04
[1] 0x00000001 55 06
[2] 0x00000002 2A 86 48 86 F7 14 01 02
[3] 0x00000003 2A 86 48 86 F7 14 01 03
[4] 0x00000004 60 86 48 01 65 02 02 01
[5] 0x00000005 60 86 48 01 65 02 02 03
[6] 0x00000006 60 86 48 01 65 02 01 05
[7] 0x00000007 60 86 48 01 65 02 01 04
[8] 0x00000008 55 05
[9] 0x00000009 2A 86 48 86 F7 14 01 04
[10] 0x0000000A 2A 86 48 86 F7 14 01 05
[11] 0x00000013 09 92 26 89 93 F2 2C 64
[12] 0x00000014 60 86 48 01 86 F8 42 03
[13] 0x00000015 09 92 26 89 93 F2 2C 64 01
[14] 0x00000016 60 86 48 01 86 F8 42 03 01
[15] 0x00000017 2A 86 48 86 F7 14 01 05 B6 58
[16] 0x00000018 55 15
[17] 0x00000019 55 12
[18] 0x0000001A 55 14
[19] 0x0000677D 2A 81 7A
[20] 0x000068C3 2A 81 7A 81
[21] 0x000049D1 2A 81 7A 81 80
Oids from String and Binary Comparison Checks
---------------------------------------------
Oid[0] Match
Found: 1.2.250.1
Oid[1] Match
Found: 1.2.250.130
Oid[2] Match
Found: 1.2.250.16386
Oid[3] Match
Found: 1.2.250.2097154
PrefixTable Search
------------------
Found Oid[0] at [19] (Match)
===============================
Index prefixIndex prefixString
----- ----------- ------------------------------------
[19] 0x0000677D 2A 81 7A
Construction: StringOid
Value: 1.2.250.1
Binary: 2A 81 7A 01
Prefix: 2A 81 7A
Postfix: 01
Description: 0x2A817A + 01 ('1.2.250.1')
PrefixLen: 3
PrefixIndex: 0x677D
LastSubID: 0x0001
AttId: 0x677D0001
Found Oid[1] at [19] (Match)
===============================
Index prefixIndex prefixString
----- ----------- ------------------------------------
[19] 0x0000677D 2A 81 7A
Construction: StringOid
Value: 1.2.250.130
Binary: 2A 81 7A 81 02
Prefix: 2A 81 7A
Postfix: 81 02
Description: 0x2A817A + 8102 ('1.2.250.130')
PrefixLen: 3
PrefixIndex: 0x677D
LastSubID: 0x0082
AttId: 0x677D0082
Found Oid[2] at [20] (Match)
===============================
Index prefixIndex prefixString
----- ----------- ------------------------------------
[20] 0x000068C3 2A 81 7A 81
Construction: StringOid
Value: 1.2.250.16386
Binary: 2A 81 7A 81 80 02
Prefix: 2A 81 7A 81
Postfix: 80 02
Description: 0x2A817A81 + 8002 ('1.2.250.16386')
PrefixLen: 4
PrefixIndex: 0x68C3
LastSubID: 0x8002
AttId: 0x68C38002
Found Oid[3] at [21] (Match)
===============================
Index prefixIndex prefixString
----- ----------- ------------------------------------
[21] 0x000049D1 2A 81 7A 81 80
Construction: StringOid
Value: 1.2.250.2097154
Binary: 2A 81 7A 81 80 80 02
Prefix: 2A 81 7A 81 80
Postfix: 80 02
Description: 0x2A817A8180 + 8002 ('1.2.250.2097154')
PrefixLen: 5
PrefixIndex: 0x49D1
LastSubID: 0x8002
AttId: 0x49D18002
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:06 AM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Good evening Bill,
Thanks for the update.
BR,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 4:56 PM
To: Kamen Mazdrashki
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Good morning Kamen – I am sending this update to advise you of my progress. I have coded the algorithms in C#, in advance of scanning the last data (ldif &py) you sent.
I expect to have some results for you by tomorrow morning at the latest (along with the Visual Studio project).
Thanks for your patience.
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
From: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:32 AM
To: Bill Wesse
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
Hi Bill,
Sorry, I must have missed the LDIF. Here it is.
I have also gathered some data for you - the log file is bloated with other information, so here is just the most important observations from the log.
Win2k8
-----------------------------------------------------------
attid: 0x8933929C
id_prefix: 0x00004823
bin_oid: 0x2A817A + 01 ('1.2.250.1')
attid_loword: 0x0001
attid: 0x87159F45
id_prefix: 0x00004823
bid_oid: 0x2A817A + 8102 ('1.2.250.130')
attid_loword: 0x0082
attid: 0x85C6D3B9
id_prefix: 0x00000DC7
bin_oid: 0x2A817A81 + 8002 ('1.2.250.16386')
attid_loword: 0x8002
attid: 0x9E0386A9
id_prefix: 0x00003C60
bin_oid: 0x2A817A8180 + 8002 ('1.2.250.2097154')
attid_loword: 0x8002
I have 4 attributes received – all grouped above.
For the first one I got ATTID: 0x8933929C
If we follow the logic in OidFromAttid(), then first we are to find a prefixMap entry with id_prefix: 0x0000008933
Well, there is no such entry (please look in log file for Win2k8).
prefixMap entry we should find for this ATTID is id_prefix: 0x00004823. So let’s pretend, that 0x8933 is somehow mapped to 0x4823 and try to make full binary-oid of the Attribute.
According to docs, I should add the lo-word for ATTID, e.g. 0x929C, to the partial binary-oid in the prefixMap - 0x2A817A.
When I do this, I got OID='1.2.250.4764' instead of '1.2.250.1'.
Btw, in order to not making all those calculations by hand every time, I’ve created a little Python script to do the job.
So, if you have a Python installed, you can just ‘import prefixmap’ in Python console and then execute prefixmap.oid_from_attid('0x2A817A', '0x8933929C') – it will return '1.2.250.4764'. Prefix map module implements algorithms described in MS-DRSR.
I am attaching the Python script also if you want to play with it.
Regards,
Kamen Mazdrashki
kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
-------------------------------------
CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:44 PM
>To: Kamen Mazdrashki
>Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
>Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 -
>prefixMap implementation
>
>Good morning again Kamen. I have completed my investigation of our
>prefixMap, MakeAttid() and OidFromAttid() on Windows 2003 &2008 R2:
>they are indeed functionally identical.
>
>So, something else is going on here, and we will need to duplicate your
>results under debug. To do that, I need to ask you to forward a copy of
>the LDIF file to me (I received the docs &conf file, but not the
>LDIF).
>
>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: Bill Wesse
>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:15 AM
>To: 'Kamen Mazdrashki'
>Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
>Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 -
>prefixMap implementation
>
>Thanks for the advisory - I will follow up with you on the attid - I
>will be expanding my code study on this.
>
>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: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:56 AM
>To: Bill Wesse
>Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
>Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 -
>prefixMap implementation
>
>Hi Bill,
>
>Currently this issue stops me from implementing MakeAttid() and
>OidFromAttid() to work transparently in all cases - from Win2k3 to
>Win2k8. Also I can't make a reasonable unit test for those functions.
>Nevertheless, it is not a 'show stopper' for me at this stage, as
>current implementation (following MS-DRSR) work well for Win2k3 and
>Win2k8 (without modifying schema).
>
>Attached you may find:
> - LDIF file;
> - 2 logs - from Win2k3 (Functional Level = Win 2000) and Win2k8-R2
>(Functional Level = Win 2008 R2);
> - smb conf file used for testing, in case you want to try it by
>yourself
>
>I am currently on making an resume for Win2k8 result I got from windows
>server.
>
>It seems not to be a corner case to me.
>It seems more like a special case for Win2k8 - ATTIDs for all newly
>created attributes are with 31-th bit set.
>
>Regards,
>Kamen Mazdrashki
>kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
>http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
>-------------------------------------
>CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
>http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:50 PM
>>To: Kamen Mazdrashki
>>Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
>>Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2
>-
>>prefixMap implementation
>>
>>Hello again, Kamen. Could you forward the LDIF file to me? I want to
>>make sure I haven't missed anything (thanks).
>>
>>Also, I have again reviewed the MakeAttid() and OidFromAttid() pseudo
>>code in [MS-DRSR] 5.16.4 (ATTRTYP-to-OID Conversion) - they do appear
>>to be accurate representations of our implementations; my earlier
>>comment about a 'corner-case' was an error, I got mixed up between
>>string &binary OIDs.
>>
>>There is certainly something else going on here, and I will continue
>>working on it.
>>
>>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: Bill Wesse
>>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:51 AM
>>To: 'Kamen Mazdrashki'
>>Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
>>Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2
>-
>>prefixMap implementation
>>
>>You are very welcome. Could you advise me concerning how much this is
>>affecting your implementation development, so that I can set the TDI
>>priority appropriately?
>>
>>I have cross-compared the Windows 2003 and Windows 2008 R2
>>implementations of the MakeAttid() and OidFromAttid() functions;
>there
>>appear to be no functional changes.
>>
>>I suspect there is some corner-case not fully described in the attid
>>composition in MakeAttid (lastValue ≥ 16384).
>>
>>procedure MakeAttid(var t: PrefixTable, o: OID): ATTRTYP ...
>> /*compose the attid*/
>> lowerWord := lastValue mod 16384
>> if lastValue ≥ 16384 then
>> /*mark it so that it is known to not be the whole lastValue*/
>> lowerWord := lowerWord + 32768
>> endif
>>
>>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: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:16 AM
>>To: Bill Wesse; Interoperability Documentation Help
>>Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
>>Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2
>-
>>prefixMap implementation
>>
>>Hi Bill,
>>
>>Thanks for your support.
>>I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Kamen Mazdrashki
>>kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
>>http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
>>-------------------------------------
>>CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
>>http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Bill Wesse [mailto:billwe at microsoft.com]
>>>Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:37 PM
>>>To: Kamen Mazdrashki; Interoperability Documentation Help
>>>Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
>>>Subject: RE: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section
>5.12.2
>>-
>>>prefixMap implementation
>>>
>>>Good afternoon Kamen. This is Bill Wesse from the Protocol Support
>>>team. I will be your contact for the case noted below, where you
>>asked
>>>about prefixMap implementation differences for Windows 2003 and
>>Windows
>>>2008 R2.
>>>
>>>SRX091020600112 [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 - prefixMap implementation
>>>
>>>I will keep you updated with the results of my investigation as
>>details
>>>develop.
>>>
>>>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: Kamen Mazdrashki [mailto:kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:36 AM
>>>To: Interoperability Documentation Help
>>>Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
>>>Subject: [cifs-protocol] Question about [MS-DRSR] section 5.12.2 -
>>>prefixMap implementation
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I need a clarification about what are the differences between
>>prefixMap
>>>implementation for Win2K3 and Win2K8(R2).
>>>
>>>Attached you may find:
>>>1. LDIF file to provision AD Schema with some test Attributes -
>OIDs
>>of
>>>those attributes are crafted so that different scenarios could be
>>>tested.
>>>2. Log files gathered during execution of Samba's RPC-DSSYNC test
>>>against Win2K3 and Win2K8. I am sending the log files as Word
>>documents
>>>so it is easy for me to highlight interesting parts from the log
>>files.
>>> -- prefixMap received is highlighted with 'gray'; newly added
>>entries
>>>are highlighted with 'yellow'
>>> -- newly added object attributes received are also highlighted
>>>with 'yellow'
>>>3. For testing I was using:
>>> -- Win2k3 R2 - Domain functional level = Win 2000 installation
>>> -- Win2K8 R2 - Domain functional lever = Win 2008 R2
>>> -- Samba 4 - latest build. Test run is RPC-DSSYNC.
>>> Command line for testing:
>>> $>bin/smbtorture -Uadministrator%333 --
>>>configfile=/usr/local/samba/etc/drsuapi.conf
>>>ncacn_ip_tcp:Win_machine_ip[print,seal] RPC-DSSYNC -d1
>>>
>>>As you may see, for Win2K3 everything works correctly as described
>>>in MS-DRSR, section 5.12.2.
>>>I.e. attribute with attid=0x1B860001 matches prefixMap entry with
>>>id=0x00001b86 and thus Attribute OID is correctly decoded as being
>>>'1.2.250.1'
>>>
>>>In Win2k8 log file however, for attid=0x85C6D3B9 matching prefixMap
>>>entry should be id=0x00004823 and it is not quite obvious how
>>>0x85C6D3B9 is matched to 0x00004823?
>>>
>>>Please, clarify what is the algorithm used under Win2k8 for
>>MakeAttid()
>>>and OidFromAttid() functions?
>>>
>>>Many thanks in advance.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Kamen Mazdrashki
>>>kamen.mazdrashki at postpath.com
>>>http://repo.or.cz/w/Samba/kamenim.git
>>>-------------------------------------
>>>CISCO SYSTEMS BULGARIA EOOD
>>>http://www.cisco.com/global/BG/
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/cifs-protocol/attachments/20091217/1c9229fd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the cifs-protocol
mailing list