Is NTCREATEX_OPTIONS_NOT_SUPPORTED_MASK a good idea?

[Andrew Bartlett]

Samba4 defines this set of flags, to which we reply with
'NTCREATEX_OPTIONS_NOT_SUPPORTED_MASK'.  

This is an attempt (apparently) to flag early any NT Create & X flags
that clients make that we do not support.  However as clients evolve,
they use more flags and we break - and break in ways I don't think we
need to.  If one of these flags is set, then we respond to the request
with NT_STATUS_NOT_SUPPORTED.  

So far, all the flags I've found this has triggered on (from Vista and
Office 2007) have had null implementations (or at least with the default
strict sync = no)

Is there really that dire a need to know about new flags here, that we
should break otherwise working clients?

In the meantime, I'll define and test all the 'you must ignore' flags in
the MS-SMB spec, and add null implementations for things like 'no
compression'. 

Andrew Bartlett
-- 
Andrew Bartlett
http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- 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 : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20080718/1ed74ff5/attachment.bin