On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 21:42 -0500, Steve French wrote: > Any thoughts on this patch to add additional warnings for the user - > logging when using default dialects (or when server returns dialect > not supported), and noting the default dialect change? > > See https://git.samba.org/?p=sfrench/cifs-2.6.git;a=commit;h=bb86f22eeddbb5879675b55168b8fa8990d74a21 > Breaking backward compatability sucks, but I agree that there's no real alternative here. SMB1 is just not a safe default these days. > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes - updating the parsing slightly and printks as suggested makes sense > > > > Some additional warning messages in the userspace helper (adding Jeff > > Layton), mount.cifs can also help. > > What do you suggest here? > > I also have an experimental set of patches to allow multi-dialect > > negotiation with at least three of the acceptable dialects > > (smb2.1/smb3/smb3.02) which will help, but complicate secure dialect > > validation ("validate negotiate") but that will have to wait till next > > release. > > That seems like the best way to fix this. If you fail to negotiate any dialect, throw a warning then. > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Lo! To give a bit more background to this (the mail I reply to was the > > > > first I sent with git send-email and I missed some details): Maybe I'm > > > > over stretching my abilities/position as regression tracker with this > > > > RFC for a revert, but I hope it at least triggers a discussion if such a > > > > revert should be done or not. > > > > > > I don't think that a revert is appropriate. > > > > > > But perhaps just a single printk() or something if the user does *not* > > > specify the version explicitly? Just saying something like > > > > > > We used to default to 1.0, we now default to 3.0, if you want old > > > defaults, use "vers=1.0" > > > > > > Oh, looking at that version parsing code, I think we also need to fix > > > that legacy "ver=1" thing (ver without the 's') which now silently > > > ignores "ver=1" as being the "default", even though it's not. > > > > > > I do *not* believe that "default to version 1" is acceptable. > > > > > > Linus > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > > > Steve > > > -- 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
