(no subject)

Kenichi Okuyama okuyamak at dd.iij4u.or.jp
Fri Nov 10 08:00:59 GMT 2000

Dear all, especiall Jeremy (^o^),

I have three questions that I want to know the answer.

1) In ./source/smbd/process.c: switch_message(), we have lookup
   against message type -> reply function table, name smb_message[].

   But here, instead of simply using lookup table, switch_message()
   tries to leniar search the message. WHY? Is there any reason?
   ( like ... well, table is too big, for example )

   If this is nothing more than simply old code and nobody is fixing
   is the reason, I'd like to fix it in this weekend, but if this is
   with reason, I shouldn't do that.

2) In same ./source/smbd/process.c: process_smb(),
  we first wait for "ENTIRE" SMBrequest. Then goes for reply_*()
  function branches. This is okay as long as request fits within
  single TCP/IP packet, but sometimes, request size will become
  more than single TCP/IP packet. And yet, we only need first
  4 bytes for jumping into individual reply functions.

  This fact tells us that we can first look at first 4 bytes,
  jump to individual reply function, then ask for rest of packets.
  Rest of the packet might arrive while we're finding out where to

  Was there any reason current process_smb() being like we are now,
  or is it just that nobody touched it yet.

3) Keep Alive packet which is { 0x85, 0, 0, 0 } is not anywhere
  in the reply function entry. Not even named using #define.
  Why? Is there some reasons? like ... 0x85 is not LEGAL packet,
  but it's there to check aliveness, for example ...????

best regards,
Kenichi Okuyama at Tokyo Research Lab. IBM-Japan, Co.

More information about the samba-technical mailing list