[cifs-protocol] [REG: 111081664438980] RE: Level 257 FindFirst rejected by some Windows servers even though NTLM
hongweis at microsoft.com
Tue Aug 16 13:07:17 MDT 2011
I took the ownership of this case. I will work on both of your questions and respond to you soon.
From: cifs-protocol-bounces at cifs.org [mailto:cifs-protocol-bounces at cifs.org] On Behalf Of Steve French
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:39 PM
To: Edgar Olougouna
Cc: pfif at tridgell.net; cifs-protocol at samba.org
Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] Level 257 FindFirst rejected by some Windows servers even though NTLM
Loosely related question - how do the normal windows desktops clients determine how to fall back (or move up to newer) infolevels for
FindFirst. We would normally use SMB_FIND_FILE_ID_FULL_DIR_INFO
(level 0x105 FindFirst) but we end up calling FindFirst level 0x101 (which does not request "uniqueids") since QueryPathInfo level 0x3EE
(QueryFileInternalInfo) gets NT Status: STATUS_INVALID_LEVEL
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Edgar Olougouna <edgaro at microsoft.com> wrote:
> [Dochelp to bcc]
> One of our engineers will follow-up soon on this inquiry. The case number is 111081664438980.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve French [mailto:smfrench at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:35 PM
> To: Interoperability Documentation Help
> Cc: cifs-protocol at samba.org; pfif at tridgell.net
> Subject: Level 257 FindFirst rejected by some Windows servers even
> though NTLM
> A user sent me a trace of FindFirst level 257 (0x101 ) failing to
> Windows CE with NT Status: STATUS_INVALID_LEVEL (0xc0000148)
> even though dialect negotiated was NT LM 012 and that dialect is the only prereq listed in MS-SMB for the level (see page 64).
> How can the client determine under what condition that the server does
> not support that level - - and what level to fall back (or move up to higher level)? Level 257 is pretty basic.
cifs-protocol mailing list
cifs-protocol at cifs.org
More information about the cifs-protocol