PAC Progress

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Mon Jul 4 06:42:48 GMT 2005

On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 02:33 -0400, Michael B Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 12:52:45 +1000
> Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at> wrote:
> > The problem is one of padding - but not in the usual way we find in NDR,
> > because the PAC isn't NDR.
> PAC_BUFFER is not NDR encoded but PAC_INFO_BUFFERs of certain types are
> (e.g. PAC_LOGON_INFO). This is explained very clearly in Microsoft's
> documentation. Are you deliberately avoiding that information because
> of some kind of intellectual propery concerns?

Indeed, and correct, it is not NDR.  We like to express things as IDL,
even when we are not dealing with NDR.  See our NBT layer for an

So, in the absence of NDR rules (but this does look rather like NDR,
except with a byte-buffer instead of a normal union), I'm enjoying
pidl's extensions.

I'm not sure it is worth the pidl mangling to 'peek into' that byte
buffer, and it is the management of that byte buffer that I'm having the
most trouble with.  To me, it looks like the pointed-to BUFFERS on the
wire are padded behind to force the next structure to be 8 byte

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                      
Samba Developer, SuSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list