[cifs-protocol] RE: erroneous references to little-endian
abartlet at samba.org
Mon May 11 00:00:50 GMT 2009
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 13:25 -0700, Richard Guthrie wrote:
> Thank you for the feedback. I wanted to provide you with a status
> update at this time. We have completed our investigation and will be
> updating the documentation to reflect that NRPC allows RPC to
> negotiate the endianess on fields with the exception of a subset of
> byte arrays which NRPC handles explicitly. We will keep the
> identifying text for those fields in which NRPC explicitly sets the
Indeed. That will provide very useful information. If at all possible,
rather than just retaining the text, these should be called out *very*
explicitly, as they would need to be handled as manual code, or using
mechanisms like Samba's subcontext/represent_as IDL extension.
Wording like 'unlike the remainder of this protocol, ____ always appears
little-endian, as it does not appear in the IDL directly, and therefore
is not handled by the RPC masharalling layer or it endianness
> We are working to correct the documentation at this time and once the
> final changes are complete I will send you the updated NRPC
> documentation. Please let us know if you have any further
Only that a search should be conducted over all other IDL based
protocols for similar errors.
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/cifs-protocol/attachments/20090511/70bd070f/attachment.bin
More information about the cifs-protocol