Steve, What program or API are you using on Windows client to test FIND_FIRST2 command ? Have you observed that the same Windows client sends the different information level while connecting to different server ? The client (redirector) maps the application-provided [MS-FSCC] information levels to a SMB information Level. SMB_FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO is mapped to FileBothDirectoryInformation passed from the application. I just want to check to see how this is passed from the application.
Thanks! Hongwei -----Original Message----- From: Steve French [mailto:smfre...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 4:23 PM To: Hongwei Sun Cc: Edgar Olougouna; p...@tridgell.net; cifs-proto...@samba.org; MSSolve Case Email Subject: Re: [REG:111081664438980] RE: [cifs-protocol] Level 257 FindFirst rejected by some Windows servers even though NTLM On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Hongwei Sun <hongw...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Steve, > > Windows CE is not within the scope of protocol documentation, such as > MS-SMB and MS-CIFS. Therefore it is understandable that it doesn't behave > as specified in the protocol documents. This is more about what Windows clients do not about the WindowsCE server. Clearly windows clients works (to WindowsCE server) - and it appears it is because they choose levels carefully to avoid the WindowsCE server problems instead of FIND_FILE_DIRECTORY_INFO (level 257) nor FIND_FILE_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO (258) nor FIND_FILE_ID_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO (262) Windows clients (XP, Vista, etc) know enough to send SMB_FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO (260) which doesn't make sense since FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO requires the server to return the short name (which no longer seems relevant to windows clients but they are requesting it - even of WindowsCE). Windows is NOT returning operation not supported (or the eqiuvalent) to the application, rather it is selectively choosing to use level 260 (rather than the 3 other more logical find levels) So the question is - how does Windows (clients) determine which level to request on FindFirst - in particular when not to use 257, 258 or 262 and fall back to 260? > As far as Windows systems, as per 2.2.2.3.1 MS-CIFS, for Windows NT > and earlier, the Find information levels supported are clearly > specified > > SMB_INFO_STANDARD 0x0001 > (LANMAN2.0) > SMB_INFO_QUERY_EA_SIZE 0x0002 > (LANMAN2.0) > SMB_INFO_QUERY_EAS_FROM_LIST 0x0003 (LANMAN2.0) > SMB_FIND_FILE_DIRECTORY_INFO 0x0101 (NT LANMAN) > SMB_FIND_FILE_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO 0x0102 (NT LANMAN) > SMB_FIND_FILE_NAMES_INFO 0x0103 (NT LANMAN) > SMB_FIND_FILE_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO 0x0104 (NT LANMAN) > > For Windows 2000 and later , in addition to the levels above , the > following levels are added as per MS-SMB 2.2.6.1.1 > > SMB_FIND_FILE_ID_FULL_DIRECTORY_INFO 0x0105 (NT LANMAN) > SMB_FIND_FILE_ID_BOTH_DIRECTORY_INFO 0x0106 (NT LANMAN) > > As per 2.2.8 MS-CIFS, The client MUST map the application-provided > [MS-FSCC] information levels to SMB information Levels. For all other > [MS-FSCC] information levels, the client MUST fail the request with > STATUS_NOT_SUPPORTED. In some case, the client MUST send a fixed level. > For example, a client that has not negotiated long names support MUST request > only SMB_INFO_STANDARD. > > Please let us know if you have more questions. > > Thanks! > > Hongwei > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cifs-protocol-boun...@cifs.org > [mailto:cifs-protocol-boun...@cifs.org] On Behalf Of Steve French > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 4:54 PM > To: Edgar Olougouna > Cc: p...@tridgell.net; cifs-proto...@samba.org > Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] Level 257 FindFirst rejected by some > Windows servers even though NTLM > > It looks like Windows CE takes (only?) level 260 but I can't easily prove it > without access to a test system (I just have some customer traces) - so how > does Windows clients (Windows XP/Vista/7 etc.) determine which FindFirst > level to send to these given that the Microsoft server in this case is > reporting NT Find and NT SMB support but in practice not supporting most > FindFirst levels. > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Edgar Olougouna <edg...@microsoft.com> > wrote: >> [Dochelp to bcc] >> >> Steve, >> >> One of our engineers will follow-up soon on this inquiry. The case number is >> 111081664438980. >> >> Regards, >> Edgar >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steve French [mailto:smfre...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:35 PM >> To: Interoperability Documentation Help >> Cc: cifs-proto...@samba.org; p...@tridgell.net >> Subject: Level 257 FindFirst rejected by some Windows servers even >> though NTLM >> >> A user sent me a trace of FindFirst level 257 (0x101 ) failing to >> Windows CE with NT Status: STATUS_INVALID_LEVEL (0xc0000148) >> >> even though dialect negotiated was NT LM 012 and that dialect is the only >> prereq listed in MS-SMB for the level (see page 64). >> >> How can the client determine under what condition that the server >> does not support that level - - and what level to fall back (or move up to >> higher level)? Level 257 is pretty basic. >> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> >> Steve >> >> > > > > -- > Thanks, > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > cifs-protocol mailing list > cifs-protocol@cifs.org > https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol > > -- Thanks, Steve _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list cifs-protocol@cifs.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
