> We have a very large customer base where our driver does not
provide these /entries and have had no reports of any
> problems for 5+ years now.
Interesting. From my experiences, if you do something
in different way from MS file systems, you get problems
sooner or later.
Anyway I observed behavior of NTFS.sys on Vista with
FileTest. If I open a root directory with NtCreateFile
and then fire NtQueryDirectoryFile, neither “.” or “…”
are in the memory buffer.
However, if I open “C:\Windows” with NtCreateFile and then
call “NtQueryDirectoryFile”, then both “.” and “…” are in
the list.
I suggest you to do the same.
L.
> Anyway I observed behavior of NTFS.sys on Vista with FileTest. If I open a root
directory with NtCreateFile and then fire NtQueryDirectoryFile, neither “.” or “…”
are in the memory buffer.
Correct 
That’s where we started from.
–
Kind regards, Dejan
http://www.alfasp.com
File system audit, security and encryption kits.
>But I have to ask - does it cost you anything to have these?
Let me clarify it. Vista made us to support also other types of information than FileBothDirectoryInformation. Nobody wanted to touch this part of code before Vista came ;-). I have removed these entries during adding and implementing of other types of information, because code looked quite messy for me and there was special function for filling of FILE_BOTH_DIR_INFORMATION for “.” and “…”. It seemed to me silly to follow such pattern. Now QA team revealed different behavior FindFirstFile()/FindNextFile() in vista version so I am verifying it. My believe is that it is correct to don’t generate these entries.
I can also recall why these entries were added into our driver. It was because common dialog couldn’t open empty directory on our drive. It was revealed later that we were returning bad status (STATUS_NO_MORE_FILES instead STATUS_NO_SUCH_FILE) when SL_RETURN_SINGLE_ENTRY flag was set, which was root cause of common dialog problem.
But generally you are right it would cost several hours in worst case. Probably I can create fake items named “.”/“…” for such purpose and call existing code.
Thanks for opinions.
-Bronislav
> >But I have to ask - does it cost you anything to have these?
Let me clarify it. Vista made us to support also other types of information than FileBothDirectoryInformation. Nobody wanted to touch this part of code before Vista came
Really??? Never ran a DOS prompt before Vista? A 16-bit DOS app to be precise.
Now QA team revealed different behavior FindFirstFile()/FindNextFile() in vista version so I am verifying it.
What behavior are you referring to?
But generally you are right it would cost several hours in worst case. Probably I can create fake items named “.”/“…” for such purpose and call existing code.
Well, these entries are fake - but as mentioned already, we have not had any reported issues yet, and we don’t return these.
–
Kind regards, Dejan
http://www.alfasp.com
File system audit, security and encryption kits.
>> Now QA team revealed different behavior FindFirstFile()/FindNextFile() in
>vista version so I am verifying it.
What behavior are you referring to?
I ment different behavior of our driver with incorporated changes for vista OS in contrast to former version of our driver. I didn’t mean that this API has different behavior on Vista. I hope my eplanation is not even more confusing.
With regards
-Bronislav Gabrhelik