[cifs-protocol] SMB1 Trans2SetPathInfo() FileEndOfFileInformation is not enforcing share modes

[Bill Wesse]

Good morning Tim. Bill Wesse from the Documentation Support team here. I will be your contact for this issue. We have created the following case to track our investigation:

SRX091124600335 [MS-SMB] Trans2SetPathInfo() not enforcing share mode

I will begin work this morning, and will update you with status before the end 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

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Prouty [mailto:tim.prouty at isilon.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:07 PM
To: Interoperability Documentation Help; cifs-protocol at samba.org; pfif at tridgell.net
Subject: SMB1 Trans2SetPathInfo() FileEndOfFileInformation is not enforcing share modes

Hi,

Based on the ZwSetInformationFile() docs
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms804363.aspx) and from my testing of smb1 against a win7 share, in order to set FileEndOfFileInformation it is necessary that the file is first opened with FILE_WRITE_DATA in the access_mask.  It then follows that a Trans2SetPathInfo for FileEndOfFileInformation should implicitly open the file with FILE_WRITE_DATA before either truncating or extending the file.

The specific case I'm interested in is the following:

1. Client1 does a CreateFileAndX() on a non-existant file with a share
    mode of 0 and holds the file open.

2. Client 2 does a Trans2SetPathInfo() with the level set to
    FileEndOfFileInformation (0x104) as documented in the SNIA CIFS
    spec.  As expected NT_STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION is returned here.

3. Client 2 does a Trans2SetPathInfo() with the undocumented
    pass-through level that also allows setting the
    FileEndOfFileInformation (1020 / 0x3FC).  The client specifies that
    it wants to extend the file size to 100.  Interestingly, win7 and
    winXP will return NT_STATUS_SUCCESS and successfully extend the
    length of the file.  This operation seems to be circumventing the
    share mode enforcement.

Is #3 actually correct behavior that other servers should implement?
If so, can the cases where share modes are not enforced be enumerated in the documentation?

I have attached a pcap of a client executing these exact steps against a win7 server.

Packet 27/28: Step 1
Packet 29/30: Step 2
Packet 33-36: Step 3 (and verifies that the file was indeed extended) Packet 37/38: Show that share modes should still be enforced.

Thanks!

-Tim