I'll make sure this is spelled out in the doc. :)
Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:27:35PM -0700, Tim Prouty wrote:
>> In master a sesssetupAndX chained with a tconn will not correctly set
>> the TID in the response header. I'm seeing an XP client send this
>> chained sesssetup/tconn when samba has security = share. Samba's
>> current behavior is to return a TID of 0 in the smb header rather than
>> the actual TID. This patch also updates the UID in the header as
>> well. I wanted to have someone who knows the chaining code well
>> review this before I push it.
> Your patch looks absolutely right.
>> I spent a bit of time working on a torture test to make it easier to
>> reproduce, but the infrastructure isn't quite there to easily chain
>> sesssetupAndX messages.
> Wrong :-)
> Look at the chain2 test in master. Okay, okay, I've just
> added it...
> Can you extend that one or add another test that actually
> verifies we don't regress on this? And, make sure it works
> against Windows and activate it in the build farm?
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/ -)----- Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/ -)----- ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/ -)----- crh@xxxxxxxxxxxx
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/ -)----- crh@xxxxxxxxx