Re: Should multiuser imply "noperm" mount option?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



aaah - great, missed that.

Wish it were easier to setup kerberos (and that we had Samba 4 DC out)
so we could turn multiuser on by default ... (or if we could fix it
for ntlmv2)

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:12:20 -0500
> Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> If multiuser mount is enabled and we are getting and sending the
>> "correct" credentials - should we enable noperm by default (so we
>> don't do client side permission checking unless we are mounted as
>> single user - no multiuser)
>>
>
> It already does that. From the multiuser section of the
> mount.cifs manpage:
>
>          "With this change, it's feasible for the server to handle
>           permissions enforcement, so this option also implies "noperm"."
>
> --
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx>
>



-- 
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


[Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux