On 10/20/2014 06:24 PM, steve wrote: > On 19/10/14 22:48, Jurjen Bokma wrote: >> On 10/19/2014 10:42 PM, steve wrote: >>> On 19/10/14 22:30, Jurjen Bokma wrote: >>> >>>> So I would very much like to use SMB3 to get to the Windows file >>>> servers. Kerberized SMB1 worked like a charm. Speed/bandwidth is not >>>> really the issue here. >>>> >>> Yeah, of course. Never knew there was any security involved. Worrying. >> Did you ever have SMB3 working Kerberized? If I know it's supposed to >> work, I'll give up less easily. >> > Hi > We have everything default. We'd no idea that smb3 existed until this > thread. Anyway, it doesn't work here either: > CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code = -128 > I think the Kerberos has worked because that codes means that the ticket > has expired, except it hasn't because removing vers=3.0 mounts fine. > But we don't know if our Samba4 file servers are capable of it anyway. I > think we'd have to change something in smb.conf. Maybe to serve SMB3. Max protocol comes to mind. But editing smb.conf is not likely necessary to merely mount a share I presume? IME mount.cifs + Kerberos will work once krb5.conf and request-key are properly configured, regardless of the smb.conf on the client. I did fiddle a bit with /proc/fs/cifs/* though. > Maybe the devs will look if you bugzilla it? Will try. But first I'll take a look myself, lest I don't know what to ask. Thx so far! Jurjen -- 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
