RFC trying to support non RPC Pipe service(s)
nopower at suse.com
Tue Jul 22 04:22:38 MDT 2014
On 08/07/14 10:03, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> Hi Noel,
>> In this case there are at least 2 similar protocols (no idea if there
>> are more) so it seemed maybe a good idea
> I only now about MS-WSP which would use the "raw" infrastructure, what
> is the other one?
MS-MCIS Content Indexing Services Protocol, it seems very similar and
even uses structures with the same names (with same or sometimes
slightly different content) so... perhaps it is the only other one :-/
but... you never know :-)
>> I am still fond of the idea of getting as much stuff for free as I can,
>> if you don't see the value in having a more generic solution then would
>> there be objection to still using the (non idl generated) server side
>> hooks (e.g. raw_pipe_entry in source3/rpc_server/srv_pipe_register.c) I
>> could then manually register the server etc. instead of using the my idl
>> generated server hooks ?
> source3/rpc_server/*.c is going to die soon see
> The code from source3/rpc_server/srv_pipe_hnd.c can be simplified
> as we only have FAKE_FILE_TYPE_NAMED_PIPE_PROXY and don't really need
> this layer anymore. It can move to source3/smbd/pipes.c.
> And there we could have the very tiny infrastructure I described above.
> For the client side you might use idl, but instead of adding a new
> raw_pipe_handle infrastructure you can implement a backend for the
> dcerpc_binding_handle infrastructure. We've already done this
> for wbint_binding_handle or irpc_binding_handle.
just back from vacation (so I only read this now), please be patient, I
need to catch up here and also I need to assimilate your response above.
Also this stuff is pretty new to me so be prepared maybe for some more
stupid questions/assumptions :-)
More information about the samba-technical