In like a lamb...

[Christopher R. Hertel]

ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> Nice.

Thanks.

> Chris,  I just found that findfirst infolevel 0x105 is not defined in this doc.
> In traces it seems like this infolevel is identical to 0x104.
> 
> Can you please add this to the doc?

Not sure.

This happens to be something that we're checking into currently.  It's all
in the published docs in one form or another, so...

0x102 SMB_FIND_FILE_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO
0x104 SMB_FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO
0x105 SMB_FIND_FILE_ID_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO
0x106 SMB_FIND_FILE_ID_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO

The latter two are not documented in older docs, such as Leach/Naik.  They
are, however, documented on Microsoft's website in a variety of places.

You say that 0x104 and 0x105 are the same, but they do differ.

Both 0x105 and 0x106 have an 8-byte FileID field (which is supposed to
uniquely identify the file *on the server*).

0x102 and 104 don't have the FileID field, but they do have space for the
file short name.

There are a couple of other questions, such as whether or not NT supported
0x105 and 0x106, that we have to answer.  Remember that [MS-CIFS] covers
Windows NT3.51 and NT4 server implementations.

Anyway, the answer is in the works.  It would be better (for me) if'n this
sort of question went through the channels that that Andrew Bartlett was
working on setting up.  :)

Chris -)-----

-- 
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
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