Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:19:04 -0600 | From | Steve French <> | Subject | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.20 |
| |
Chuck Ebbert wrote: > In-Reply-To: <4579AFA5.90003@us.ibm.com> > > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:32:05 -0600, Steve French wrote: > > >> smbfs deprecation is ok but there are a few things to consider: >> > > How well-tested is the plaintext password support? > > By default the /proc/fs/cifs/SecurityFlags setting is 0x7 (MAY_SIGN | > MAY_NTLM | MAYNTLMV2). Trying to connect to an old Samba server > with that, I got a message that the server requested a plain text > password but client support was disabled. > > After changing the flags to 0x37 (adding MAY_LANMAN | MAY_PLNTXT), > I got "invalid password." Looking at the ethereal traces, it seemed > that the password was being sent as encrypted Unicode, and the only > way to make it connect was to set the flags to 0x30. > I don't remember any problems reported with plain text password support on current cifs and I have certainly seen it negotiated with no problem, but I will double check with your reported flag combination. > Also, the client doesn't automatically pick up the domain name from > smb.conf like smbfs does. > > That is true, and is intentional. cifs sends a domain of null (ie use the server's default domain) - but it can be overridden on mount - 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/
|  |