On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Robbert Kouprie <robbert@xxxxxx> wrote: > Also, > > Op 8-12-2010 18:28, Shirish Pargaonkar schreef: >> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Shirish Pargaonkar > >>>>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/sess.c b/fs/cifs/sess.c >>>>> index 7b01d3f..122ad31 100644 >>>>> --- a/fs/cifs/sess.c >>>>> +++ b/fs/cifs/sess.c >>>>> @@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ static void build_ntlmssp_negotiate_blob(unsigned char *pbuffer, > > (...) > >>>>> @@ -544,8 +544,9 @@ static int build_ntlmssp_auth_blob(unsigned char *pbuffer, > > The patch you sent me (and which I tested successfully) had an extra > hunk in it: > > @@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ static int build_ntlmssp_auth_blob(unsigned char > *pbuffer, > flags = NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_56 | > NTLMSSP_REQUEST_TARGET | NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_TARGET_INFO | > NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_128 | NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_UNICODE | > - NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_NTLM; > + NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_NTLM | NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_EXTENDED_SEC; > if (ses->server->secMode & > (SECMODE_SIGN_REQUIRED | SECMODE_SIGN_ENABLED)) > flags |= NTLMSSP_NEGOTIATE_SIGN; > > Is it your intent to leave out this hunk? Yes, it does not matter whether that flag bit exists or not in ntlmssp auth packet (type 3). > > Regards, > Robbert > -- 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
