On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:38:18 +0300 > Pavel Shilovsky <piastryyy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 2010/11/13 Pavel Shilovsky <piastryyy@xxxxxxxxx>: >> > 2010/11/13 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> >> >> I don't think this patch deals correctly with servers that are >> >> listening on RFC1001_PORT but not CIFS_PORT. With two mounts to the >> >> same server that don't specify a port, you'll end up with two sockets, >> >> right? >> > >> >> And from another hand: If user doesn't specify the port we should >> think that it means the 445 port. If user wants to mount 139 port, he >> should specify this port manually. So, there is no error with the >> patch in this case. >> >> From this point of view we should remove trying with 139 port if we >> failed with 445 port. What do you think about it? >> > > That sounds like a regression. The mount.cifs manpage says: > > port=arg > sets the port number on the server to attempt to contact to > negotiate CIFS support. If the CIFS server is not listening on this > port or if it is not specified, the default ports will be tried > i.e. port 445 is tried and if no response then port 139 is tried. > > > I think we ought to preserve that behavior. Perhaps if no port is > specified then match any TCP session that is on port 445 or port 139? Right - sounds logical that if you don't specify a port, then we try to match a connection on any existing port. If there is no existing port, and none was specified, then 445 first then 139. -- Thanks, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
