On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 15:11:37 -0700 Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:00:14 -0700 > > Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Marcus Moeller <marcus.moeller@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Hi again, > >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:50:03 +0200 > >> >>>>>>>>>> Marcus Moeller <marcus.moeller@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 124.607810] fs/cifs/cifssmb.c: negprot rc 0 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 124.607814] fs/cifs/connect.c: Security Mode: 0xf > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Capabilities: > >> >>>>>>>>>>> 0x8001f3fc TimeAdjust: -7200 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 124.607817] fs/cifs/sess.c: sess setup type 4 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 124.607826] fs/cifs/cifs_spnego.c: key description = > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> ver=0x2;host=d.ethz.ch;ip4=82.130.70.6;sec=krb5;uid=0xaf05;creduid=0xaf05;user=mam4tst;pid=0x61a > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 124.803185] fs/cifs/sess.c: ssetup freeing small buf > >> >>>>>>>>>>> ffff88022c31a000 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 124.803195] CIFS VFS: Send error in SessSetup = -126 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 124.803203] fs/cifs/connect.c: CIFS VFS: leaving > >> >>>>>>>>>>> cifs_get_smb_ses (xid = 5) rc = -126 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 124.803212] fs/cifs/fscache.c: > >> >>>>>>>>>>> cifs_fscache_release_client_cookie: > >> >>>>>>>>>>> (0xffff88022a1b6000/0xffff88022a6430f0) > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 124.803368] fs/cifs/connect.c: CIFS VFS: leaving cifs_mount > >> >>>>>>>>>>> (xid > >> >>>>>>>>>>> = 4) rc = -126 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 124.803374] CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code = -126 > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> The only failure I see is the one above, and that's because it > >> >>>>>>>>>> failed > >> >>>>>>>>>> to upcall for the correct key. Are you sure you have krb5 creds as > >> >>>>>>>>>> that > >> >>>>>>>>>> user? > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> Yes, creds are there and it also works when mounting from one of > >> >>>>>>>>> the > >> >>>>>>>>> servers directly. > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> Only mounting using the domainname does not work. > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 131.324798] fs/cifs/cifssmb.c: negprot rc 0 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 131.324804] fs/cifs/connect.c: Security Mode: 0xf > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Capabilities: > >> >>>>>>>>>>> 0x8001f3fc TimeAdjust: -7200 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 131.324808] fs/cifs/sess.c: sess setup type 4 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 131.324821] fs/cifs/cifs_spnego.c: key description = > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> ver=0x2;host=d.ethz.ch;ip4=172.31.65.62;sec=krb5;uid=0xaf05;creduid=0xaf05;user=mam4tst;pid=0x62c > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 131.384335] fs/cifs/transport.c: For smb_command 115 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 131.384344] fs/cifs/transport.c: Sending smb: smb_len=1666 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 131.387043] fs/cifs/connect.c: RFC1002 header 0xf9 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 131.387055] fs/cifs/misc.c: checkSMB Length: 0xfd, > >> >>>>>>>>>>> smb_buf_length: 0xf9 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 131.387095] fs/cifs/transport.c: cifs_sync_mid_result: cmd=115 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> mid=2 state=4 > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [ 131.387100] fs/cifs/misc.c: Null buffer passed to > >> >>>>>>>>>>> cifs_small_buf_release > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Here' the upcall for a similar set of creds worked fine. The only > >> >>>>>>>>>> thing > >> >>>>>>>>>> that seems to have changed in the key description is the IP > >> >>>>>>>>>> address. > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Do you have cifs.upcall set up to use the --trust-dns flag? If so, > >> >>>>>>>>>> why? > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> A relict from the past. I have removed it from the config. Thanks > >> >>>>>>>>> for > >> >>>>>>>>> pointing out. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Sorry, I was wrong. Without the -t option I am not even able to mount > >> >>>>> it > >> >>>>> at all. The man page states a few words on that parameter, but I am > >> >>>>> still not sure how it works when -t is not set. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> With -t set, the initial problem with the domain lookup works, when > >> >>>>> reverse DNS is configured propably. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Ok, that makes sense then. The problem here is that the kernel needs to > >> >>>> know what service principal name to use when contacting the server, and > >> >>>> I suspect your krb5 configuration is not quite right. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> It looks like you're doing something like: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> mount //d.ethz.ch/dfs /mnt/dfs -o sec=krb5... > >> >>>> > >> >>>> ...at this point, what happens is that the kernel needs to get a krb5 > >> >>>> service ticket to talk to the CIFS service on the host. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> What it typically does is take the hostname in the UNC that you're > >> >>>> trying to mount, prepend it with "cifs/" and then try to get a service > >> >>>> ticket for that. In your case, it'll look something like this: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> cifs/d.ethz.ch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> >>>> > >> >>>> ...now, typically if that fails, we'll give up. Trying to do anything > >> >>>> else is not considered safe since it's vulernable to DNS spoofing. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> If however, you add the '-t' flag to cifs.upcall, that tells it to try > >> >>>> and guess the hostname part of that principal by reverse resolving it in > >> >>>> DNS. It takes the IP address to which you are connecting, does a > >> >>>> reverse DNS lookup and then uses that in the SPN. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> This is less safe, since if your DNS server is compromised someone > >> >>>> could redirect you to a malicious server, and your client wouldn't be > >> >>>> able to trivially detect that. So it in effect waters down krb5 > >> >>>> security. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The correct fix is to ensure that the server(s) to which you are > >> >>>> connecting have the ability to accept SPNs for the "hostnames" to which > >> >>>> you want to connect. That means that you need to add SPNs for > >> >>>> cifs/d.ethz.ch and ensure that the server will accept them to talk to > >> >>>> its cifs service. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Alternately, you can continue to use the '-t' flag and ensure that each > >> >>>> possible server accepts principals for the hostnames to which their IP > >> >>>> addresses reverse-resolve, with the caveat that its less safe than > >> >>>> doing that the "right way". > >> >>>> > >> >>>> As to how to add these principals and make the server accept them...it > >> >>>> depends on the server. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Clear as mud? > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Hehe, thanks for pointing that out. One thing I am not yet aware of is > >> >>> where the SPN cifs/d.ethz.ch has to be set? On the DFS Servers and/or on > >> >>> the servers which hold the shares? The latter ones are EMC and the DFS > >> >>> Servers are 2008R2. > >> >>> > >> >>> Greets > >> >>> Marcus > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> Definitely on the first DFS server. On the others, they'll need to > >> >> accept SPNs holding the hostnames that are in the DFS referrals. So if > >> >> your DFS server gives you a referral that's something like this: > >> >> > >> >> bar -> //foo.d.ethz.ch/bar > >> >> > >> >> ...then you'll need to ensure that foo.d.ethz.ch accepts SPNs that have > >> >> that hostname in them. > >> > > >> > > >> > I have found some time to talk to our Active Directory Admins. They > >> > mentioned that every DC in our setup is a DFS server and there is nothing > >> > like a 'first DFS'. So is it possible to set the same SPN on all of these > >> > servers? > >> > >> No, it is not possible to set the same SPN on more than one computer > >> object in AD. > >> > >> What happens here is a combination of DNS magic (there are multiple > >> SRV records) and replication of the DFS info between DCs in the AD > >> domain. > >> > >> A client can query any DC for the translation of a DNS namespace. > >> > >> My use case lives below that level and it is all pretty much working > >> (except for XP, which will not do multiple levels of DFS referrals, it > >> seems.) > >> > >> In any event, I might eventually have to use a shared secrets file, > >> which overcomes the issue of SPNs. > >> > > > > What SRV records are used? Should we fix mount.cifs to try and query > > for an SRV record first and then try to resolve that hostname before > > attempting to mount? > > Those are just for finding the namespace, and I am not sure exactly > how it is handled, but if you have a namespace of > \\domain.realm\namespace1, I think any DC in that domain can be used > to get to the first level. > Bear with me, as I'm pretty clueless as to how AD stuff works. If all I have is \\domain.realm\namespace1 what should I be doing to connect to it at that point? Currently we just treat "domain.realm" as a hostname, but evidently that's not quite the right thing to do. Is it? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
