From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve French Subject: Re: [PATCH] cifs: fix the kernel release version in the default security warning message Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 11:26:00 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4DE880E3.8020502@suse.de> <20110603091119.7596fade@corrin.poochiereds.net> <4DE90669.5020108@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Jeff Layton , linux-cifs To: Suresh Jayaraman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4DE90669.5020108-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Suresh Jayaraman = wrote: > On 06/03/2011 06:41 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:06:19 +0530 >> Suresh Jayaraman wrote: >> >>> >>> When ntlm security mechanim is used, the message that warns about t= he upgrade >>> to ntlmv2 got the kernel release version wrong (Blame it on Linus := ). Fix it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Suresh Jayaraman >>> --- >>> =A0fs/cifs/connect.c | =A0 =A02 +- >>> =A01 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 *serv= er, struct smb_vol *volume_info) >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0warned_on_ntlm =3D true; >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0cERROR(1, "default security mechanism re= quested. =A0The default " >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"security mechanism will= be upgraded from ntlm to " >>> - =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"ntlmv2 in kernel release = 2.6.41"); >>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0"ntlmv2 in kernel release = 3.1"); >>> =A0 =A0 =A0} >>> =A0 =A0 =A0ses->overrideSecFlg =3D 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 i= t > into submission, and get scripts etc cleaned up, and the final releas= e > should be just "3.0". The -stable team can use the third number for > their versioning." > > I think 3.1 should be ok? Yes. --=20 Thanks, Steve