On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:16:54 -0500 Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:
> From 9b7b518633fd3187c7efe260fe20a0961e4a5f0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Steve French <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:00:26 -0500 > Subject: [CIFS] ls on mounts to WindowsCE failing with invalid level message > > Mount succeeds to WindowsCE but when user tries > to access the contents of the directory gets "NT Status: > STATUS_INVALID_LEVEL" according to wireshark. > > This server does not support the common windows > readdir (Findfirst) level 257 nor level 258, so "fall back" > to level 260 if get an EOPNOTSUPP on level FIND_FILE_DIRECTORY_INFO > and while we are at it fall back to level 1 (FILE_INFO_STANDARD) > for very old servers if we get an EOPNOTSUPP on level 260. > (Note that the server returned errors on queries for inode > numbers via QueryPathInfo so we don't use the infolevel > SMB_FIND_FILE_ID_FULL_DIR_INFO) > > Reported-and-tested-by: Bryan James <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Steve French <[email protected]> > --- > fs/cifs/readdir.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/readdir.c b/fs/cifs/readdir.c > index 5de03ec..ed29706 100644 > --- a/fs/cifs/readdir.c > +++ b/fs/cifs/readdir.c > @@ -270,6 +270,7 @@ ffirst_retry: > cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level = SMB_FIND_FILE_DIRECTORY_INFO; > } > > +ffirst_retry_with_std_level: > rc = CIFSFindFirst(xid, pTcon, full_path, cifs_sb->local_nls, > &cifsFile->netfid, &cifsFile->srch_inf, > cifs_sb->mnt_cifs_flags & > @@ -283,7 +284,23 @@ ffirst_retry: > (cifs_sb->mnt_cifs_flags & CIFS_MOUNT_SERVER_INUM)) { > cifs_sb->mnt_cifs_flags &= ~CIFS_MOUNT_SERVER_INUM; > goto ffirst_retry; > + } else if ((rc == -EOPNOTSUPP) && (cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level == > + SMB_FIND_FILE_DIRECTORY_INFO)) { ^^^^ there's no need for the extra sets of parenthesis here. That violates kernel coding conventions and makes this harder to read. > + /* Windows CE can return EOPNOTSUPP on FILE_DIRECTORY_INFO */ > + cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level = > + SMB_FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO; ^^^^ The code doesn't currently use BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO anywhere. Would it be better to skip this step? > + goto ffirst_retry_with_std_level; > + } else if ((rc == -EOPNOTSUPP) && (cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level == > + SMB_FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO)) { > + cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level = > + SMB_FIND_FILE_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO; ^^^^ Ditto here. Would it be best to just fall back to the lowest common denominator here? I'm not sure I see a lot of benefit in using any of these other infolevels. We'll basically get the same info out of SMB_FIND_FILE_INFO_STANDARD and it's more widely supported. > + goto ffirst_retry_with_std_level; > + } else if ((rc == -EOPNOTSUPP) && (cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level == > + SMB_FIND_FILE_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO)) { > + cifsFile->srch_inf.info_level = SMB_FIND_FILE_INFO_STANDARD; > + goto ffirst_retry_with_std_level; > } > + > error_exit: > kfree(full_path); > cifs_put_tlink(tlink); -- Jeff Layton <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
