IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
We needed a flag in bufinfo to mark packets as SMB2, as it seems that
SMB2 uses a different format for the RenameInformation buffer than SMB
does
Also handle the fact that SMB2 clients give the full path to the
target file in the rename, not a relative path
This converts our SMB and SMB2 code to use a common structure "struct
request_bufinfo" for information on the buffer bounds of a packet,
alignment information and string handling. This allows us to use a
common backend for SMB and SMB2 code, while still using all the same
string and blob handling functions.
Up to now we had been passing a NULL req handle into these common
routines from the SMB2 side of the server, which meant that we failed
any operation which did a bounds checked string extraction (such as a
RenameInformation setinfo call, which is what Vista uses for renaming
files)
There is still some more work to be done on this - for example we can
now remove many of the SMB2 specific buffer handling functions that we
had, and use the SMB ones.
- to use a struct ntvfs_handle instead of a uint16_t fnum.
(to make it independend from the frontend protocol)
- the allocation of handles now is provided by the frontend
(smbsrv_*) via callbacks and not by each backend module
- this also makes sure that file handles are only passed
to the ntvfs subsystem when the tcon and session matches,
so modules can rely on this and need to check this.
- this allows multiple modules in the ntvfs module chain
to allocate file handles. This can be used for virtual
files like "\\$Extend\\$Quota:$Q:$INDEX_ALLOCATION"...
- also this will make SMB2 with 128 bit file handles possible
metze
now smbsrv_setup_reply() and req_setup_chain_reply() do the same thing
tridge: can you please check if this is correct,
I wonder why we don't got valgrind errors...
as the over allocation is disabled currently
metze
