SessionSetup_and_X with VC=0

Christopher R. Hertel crh at ubiqx.mn.org
Thu Mar 6 22:18:38 GMT 2003


I don't have all the answers here but I did write up some information 
about the intentions behind the VC number, and the problems with doing 
anything other than ignoring it.  See:

  http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html#SMB.7

...and scroll down a little.  The interesting bit is probably in section
2.7.1.1.

Chris -)-----

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:55:50PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> I was following an earlier thread "Samba doesn't free network resource
> with XP clients", and in investigating the SessionSetup_and_X handling I
> have a couple of questions.  (I only looked at 2.2.7a (not 3.0))
> 
> 1) It appears that in reply_sesssetup_and_X(), the VC is in essence
> ignored. When I look at an ethereal trace of browsing from a W2k
> workstation, many SessionSetups are transacted for user anonymous, and
> *new* uids are being issued.  Is not reclaiming users by tracking VCs
> chewing up pdb entries?  Or is the uid simply being advanced without
> *real* resource allocation for the guest user?
> 
> 2) Is it possible to have multiple child smbds servicing one W2k
> workstation?  If so, under what conditions?  I can only get it to use
> the same negotiated session key over and over again.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Peter Hurley
> 

-- 
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh at ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh at ubiqx.org


More information about the samba-technical mailing list