lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.043 / U:0.816 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site