Is NTCREATEX_OPTIONS_NOT_SUPPORTED_MASK a good idea?
abartlet at samba.org
Fri Jul 18 08:18:30 GMT 2008
Samba4 defines this set of flags, to which we reply with
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
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
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20080718/1ed74ff5/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical