alternate form of tconX response

[Steven French]

Well some clients (e.g. the cifs vfs) would not be hurt by the wct=7
because the fields are at the end of the wct area and would be ignored, but
I would not rely on that in general.   The server really should check the
tconx flags to determine which to send.  The mechanism is simple - if in
the tconX request the client sets the tcon flags to 0x0008 it indicates its
desire for getting the mask (as Win2K and XP do) - so give it the extra 2
DWORDs in the response - otherwise don't.   Same thing on the NTCreateX
presumably - one of the multiple flag fields that the client sends on the
NTCreateX request will end up being what tells the server it wants the
extra fields in the response.

Steve French
Senior Software Engineer
Linux Technology Center - IBM Austin
phone: 512-838-2294
email: sfrench at us.ibm.com


Shirish Kalele <kalele at veritas.com> on 08/15/2002 08:06:48 PM

To:    jra at dp.samba.org
cc:    Steven French/Austin/IBM at IBMUS, <samba-technical at samba.org>
Subject:    Re: alternate form of tconX response



Thanks, Jeremy.

The one thing I haven't looked at is whether older clients can handle
these new-fangled tconX and ntcreate&X replies, or whether we'll have to
fall back to the old ones based on remote_arch.

I'll try and patch HEAD soon with a proper fix both for share and file
ACLs.

- Shirish

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 jra at dp.samba.org wrote:

>On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 04:15:20PM -0700, Shirish Kalele wrote:
>> Steve,
>>
>> There are two extra DWORDs of similar form in the NTCreate&X replies
sent
>> by Windows 2000. Win2K sends 42 words instead of the known 34.
>>
>> While exploring client-side caching, I discovered that these are
actually
>> access masks for the "User" who's opening the file and "Everyone Else"
>> respectively.  These access masks are used instead of the original NTACL
>> when the file is accessed offline through the CSC cache. The two access
>> masks you are seeing are probably similar "Simple File Sharing"
>> equivalents of share ACLs.
>>
>> Here's a small patch (against Samba 2.2.4) to illustrate SFS masks. You
>> can see the effect different masks have on the files cached by CSC.
>
>Damn good work ! We should definately put this into HEAD.
>
>Thanks Shirish !
>
>Jeremy.
>