Don't you think the original version of the patch should be marked for stable? -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky пт, 25 янв. 2019 г. в 18:21, ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx>: > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 12:11 PM Pavel Shilovsky <piastryyy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > чт, 24 янв. 2019 г. в 17:03, Ronnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > > > The size of the fixed part of the create response is 88 bytes not 56. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > fs/cifs/smb2pdu.h | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.h b/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.h > > > index 05dea6750c33..d8944846e6ae 100644 > > > --- a/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.h > > > +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.h > > > @@ -84,8 +84,8 @@ > > > > > > #define NUMBER_OF_SMB2_COMMANDS 0x0013 > > > > > > -/* 4 len + 52 transform hdr + 64 hdr + 56 create rsp */ > > > -#define MAX_SMB2_HDR_SIZE 0x00b0 > > > +/* 4 len + 52 transform hdr + 64 hdr + 88 create rsp */ > > > +#define MAX_SMB2_HDR_SIZE 208 > > > > Should we still account for RFC length of 4 bytes in the header? > > Good point. No we shouldn't. > > Thinking about it, in the other patch where I set the maximum create > response size to > 822 bytes (64 bytes header + 88 bytes create response + 520 bytes name > + 150 bytes context) > Should actually be 824 since we need to take into account that there > would possibly be two extra bytes of padding for a compounded create. > > I can send a follow up patch to fix both these. > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Pavel Shilovsky
