Re: [PATCH] cifs: fix the kernel release version in the default security warning message

[Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>]

On 06/03/2011 06:41 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:06:19 +0530
> Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
>>
>> When ntlm security mechanim is used, the message that warns about the upgrade
>> to ntlmv2 got the kernel release version wrong (Blame it on Linus :). Fix it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
>> ---
>>  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 6d88b82..84c7307 100644
>> --- a/fs/cifs/connect.c
>> +++ b/fs/cifs/connect.c
>> @@ -1976,7 +1976,7 @@ cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info)
>>  		warned_on_ntlm = true;
>>  		cERROR(1, "default security mechanism requested.  The default "
>>  			"security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm to "
>> -			"ntlmv2 in kernel release 2.6.41");
>> +			"ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.1");
>>  	}
>>  	ses->overrideSecFlg = volume_info->secFlg;
>>  
> 
> Looks good. Though I'm not sure whether we should call it 3.1.0?
> Regardless...

I thought about this. But, as Linus has already said:

"Now, my alpha-maleness sadly does not actually extend to all the
scripts and Makefile rules, so the kernel is fighting back, and is
calling itself 3.0.0-rc1. We'll have the usual 6-7 weeks to wrestle it
into submission, and get scripts etc cleaned up, and the final release
should be just "3.0". The -stable team can use the third number for
their versioning."

I think 3.1 should be ok?

> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


-- 
Suresh Jayaraman