I would like to trace this to check - I will try to resetup some DFS
share referrals tomorrow
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Martijn de Gouw
<martijn.de.gouw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 01/31/2013 05:53 AM, Steve French wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Martijn de Gouw
>> <martijn.de.gouw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Setting this secFlg allows usage of dfs where some servers require
>>> signing and others don't.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Martijn de Gouw <martijn.de.gouw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> :100644 100644 b39bb4a... 4da9dd3... M fs/cifs/connect.c
>>> fs/cifs/connect.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/connect.c b/fs/cifs/connect.c
>>> index b39bb4a..4da9dd3 100644
>>> --- a/fs/cifs/connect.c
>>> +++ b/fs/cifs/connect.c
>>> @@ -994,7 +994,7 @@ static int cifs_parse_security_flavors(char *value,
>>>
>>> switch (match_token(value, cifs_secflavor_tokens, args)) {
>>> case Opt_sec_krb5:
>>> - vol->secFlg |= CIFSSEC_MAY_KRB5;
>>> + vol->secFlg |= CIFSSEC_MAY_KRB5 | CIFSSEC_MAY_SIGN;
>>> break;
>>> case Opt_sec_krb5i:
>>> vol->secFlg |= CIFSSEC_MAY_KRB5 | CIFSSEC_MUST_SIGN;
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't this same problem occur if ntlm or ntlmv2 were authenticated
>> and a dfs referral sent us to a server which required signing - if
>> that is the case then it is not just Opt_sec_krb5 which needs to OR in
>> CIFSSEC_MAY_SIGN but also Opt_sec_ntlmssp and Opt_ntlm (also why do we
>> call this Opt_ntlm instead of Opt_sec_ntlm like the other 10?) and
>> Opt_sec_ntlmv2?
>>
>>
>
> Using sec=ntlm on the same dfs I did not see this problem. So I guess not.
>
>
> --
> Martijn de Gouw
> Engineer
> Prodrive B.V.
> Mobile: +31 63 17 76 161
> Phone: +31 40 26 76 200
--
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
