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

Tim Prouty tim.prouty at isilon.com
Wed Nov 25 11:21:23 MST 2009

Hi Bill,

Thank you for the quick answer!  I have a few comments/questions below.

On Nov 25, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Bill Wesse wrote:

> Hello Tim. I think the difference in the response between the  
> standard versus pass-through level lies in how the file handle is  
> obtained during the call (given that TRANS2_SET_PATH_INFORMATION  
> passes the path, and not the handle). The logical conclusion from  
> the trace is that pass-through gets the existing handle, and the non  
> pass-through value simply fails, because a new handle cannot be  
> opened due to the lack of sharing.

Which existing handle would the pass-through be using?  The handle
opened in packet #28 is a separate tcp connection and a separte
session from the Trans2SetPathInfo in packet #33.  I'm not aware of
any situation where the server is expected to share file handles
across multiple sessions.  Is this an exception?

> I will continue my investigation into the details on the differences  
> between the base & pass-through handling, with respect to the file  
> path / handle source. Pass-through is basically implementation  
> dependent, as noted in [MS-FSCC] (reference below), so there is a  
> possibility this may not be further elaborated on in the documents.

If a client can send a particular info level and windows implements
it, then we have a compatibility problem if we choose not to support
it.  What I would really like to know is if other SMB implementations
need to circumvent share-mode checks for this pass through level (and
maybe others?).

> Of course, TRANS2_SET_FILE_INFORMATION should succeed (without a  
> pass-through value), since that requires the file handle (per [MS- 
> CIFS] TRANS2_SET_FILE_INFORMATION (0x0008) at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee442064.aspx) 
> .

I agree. A Trans2SetFileInfo on the fid opened in packet #28 from the
same session would have succeeded.


More information about the cifs-protocol mailing list