Re: Should multiuser imply "noperm" mount option?

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

 



If we "fix" defaults in smb2 (e.g. turning on multiuser if we enable
ntlmv2 multiuser) what other mount parms (that aren't obsolete with
newer smb2) would we want to change?   perhaps cifsacl ...

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>



-- 
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