In like a lamb...
abartlet at samba.org
Fri Oct 16 00:15:16 MDT 2009
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 01:06 -0500, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> > Nice.
> > 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. :)
For the moment that's sending it to dochelp, and CC cifs-protocol.
(Don't hold your breath for me to do e-mail based bugzilla tracking of
this stuff, but I'll support someone else's efforts)
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Cisco Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the samba-technical