tcon torture test

[Christopher R. Hertel]

tridge at samba.org wrote:
> 
> Richard,
> 
> I've now modified the TCON test to be more useful. It now checks the
> following:
> 
> - does the server allow a SMBwriteX with a TID other than the one used
>   to open the file
> - does the server allow a SMBwriteX with a completely invalid TID
> - does the server allow a SMBwriteX with a completely invalid VUID
> 
> The answer to all the above is 'yes' for win2000, and 'no' for Samba.
> 
> Interestingly, win98 disallows the first two (like Samba) but allows
> the third.

I assume that W2K (and W98) are somehow using the fact that a valid TID and
UID were negotiated at some point.  You wouldn't want an SMBwriteX to
succeed if the user had not sent any valid credentials.

If two SessionSetups are sent, each resulting in a separate [V]UID, then
does Windows apply correct restrictions to each or does it allow the greater
set of permissions?  That is:

- I log on as 'crh' and get back [V]UID 1 and log on again (within the same
  session) as 'Adminstrator' and get back [V]UID 2.
- If I use [V]UID 1 in later SMBs, do I have 'Administrator' privilages or
  just the 'crh' priviledges I should have?

More to the point, can I test these combinations with smbtorture?

> This has implications for my NTVFS rewrite. It means we can't hang the
> file list off the tcon context. It also means that to be fully win2000
> complient we would need to defer the TID and VUID interpretation to
> each of the reply functions, rather than doing it in the general SMB
> parse/reply code.

I really want to know more about your NTVFS rewrite.  :)

Chris -)-----
-- 
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