Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:28:16 -0700 | From | Jeremy Allison <> | Subject | Re: Problem with CIFS |
| |
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:36:21PM -0500, Steve French wrote: > >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
FYI: I just fixed this in the 3.x SVN tree. It won't be in 3.0.6 but should be in 3.0.7 and above. Thanks !
Jeremy. - 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/
| |