[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Problem with CIFS
>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 {
SSVAL(outbuf,smb_flg2,(SVAL(outbuf,smb_flg2) &

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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.018 / U:102.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site