From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martijn de Gouw Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cifs: set MAY_SIGN when sec=krb5 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:55:05 +0100 Message-ID: <511BA949.2020100@prodrive.nl> References: <1351071946-21458-1-git-send-email-martijn.de.gouw@prodrive.nl> <510A802A.5000904@prodrive.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: To: Steve French Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 02/01/2013 06:51 AM, Steve French wrote: > I would like to trace this to check - I will try to resetup some DFS > share referrals tomorrow Did you manage to trace to check this? > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Martijn de Gouw > wrote: >> >> On 01/31/2013 05:53 AM, Steve French wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Martijn de Gouw >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Setting this secFlg allows usage of dfs where some servers require >>>> signing and others don't. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Martijn de Gouw >>>> --- >>>> :100644 100644 b39bb4a... 4da9dd3... M fs/cifs/connect.c >>>> fs/cifs/connect.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/connect.c b/fs/cifs/connect.c >>>> index b39bb4a..4da9dd3 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/cifs/connect.c >>>> +++ b/fs/cifs/connect.c >>>> @@ -994,7 +994,7 @@ static int cifs_parse_security_flavors(char *value, >>>> >>>> switch (match_token(value, cifs_secflavor_tokens, args)) { >>>> case Opt_sec_krb5: >>>> - vol->secFlg |= CIFSSEC_MAY_KRB5; >>>> + vol->secFlg |= CIFSSEC_MAY_KRB5 | CIFSSEC_MAY_SIGN; >>>> break; >>>> case Opt_sec_krb5i: >>>> vol->secFlg |= CIFSSEC_MAY_KRB5 | CIFSSEC_MUST_SIGN; >>> >>> >>> Wouldn't this same problem occur if ntlm or ntlmv2 were authenticated >>> and a dfs referral sent us to a server which required signing - if >>> that is the case then it is not just Opt_sec_krb5 which needs to OR in >>> CIFSSEC_MAY_SIGN but also Opt_sec_ntlmssp and Opt_ntlm (also why do we >>> call this Opt_ntlm instead of Opt_sec_ntlm like the other 10?) and >>> Opt_sec_ntlmv2? >>> >>> >> >> Using sec=ntlm on the same dfs I did not see this problem. So I guess not. >> >> >> -- >> Martijn de Gouw >> Engineer >> Prodrive B.V. >> Mobile: +31 63 17 76 161 >> Phone: +31 40 26 76 200 > > > > > -- > Thanks, > > Steve > Regards, Martijn -- Martijn de Gouw Engineer Prodrive B.V. Mobile: +31 63 17 76 161 Phone: +31 40 26 76 200