Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Problem with CIFS | From | Steve French <> | Date | Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:36:21 -0500 |
| |
>Can you show me where the problem is ? >Currently in smbd/negprot.c we have : > > /* do spnego in user level security if the client > supports it and we can do encrypted passwords*/ > > if (global_encrypted_passwords_negotiated && > (lp_security() != SEC_SHARE) && > lp_use_spnego() && > (SVAL(inbuf, smb_flg2) & FLAGS2_EXTENDED_SECURITY)) { > negotiate_spnego = True; > capabilities |= CAP_EXTENDED_SECURITY; > }
I think Samba is just missing the else clause in smbd/negprot.c(since reply_common sets FLAGS2_EXTENDED_SECURITY otherwise). Something like:
else { remove_from_common_flags2(FLAGS2_EXTENDED_SECURITY); SSVAL(outbuf,smb_flg2,(SVAL(outbuf,smb_flg2) & (~FLAGS2_EXTENDED_SECURITY))); }
but in any case I have to workaround it in the Linux cifs client by paying more attention to the capability bit than to the actual smb flag
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |