Hi! Just a quick feedback from my side. After reading Andrew explanation in this thread about the "movement against SMB1" I kind of think "maybe the proposed revert for 4.13 and doing it properly in 4.14 would really have been a good fit". But whatever, doesn't bother me much any more: Steve French wrote on 01.09.2017 04:42: > 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 I noticed Linus committed a sightly updated variant earlier today (https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/7e682f766f28 ). I just gave it a quick try and it worked well. I can still mount smb3 shares. For cifs/smb1 shares mount.cifs obviously still fails with the confusing error message. But at least one gets a better explanation in dmesg now. Many thx for this! Ciao, Thorsten. P.S.: For the curious reader (and search engines!), this is the confusing mount message you'll get when trying to access a CIFS/SMB1 only share with Linux master currently: mount error(112): Host is down Refer to the mount.cifs(8) manual page (e.g. man mount.cifs)" And this is the warning you see in dmesg now when not specifying "vers=1.0" as option (-o) to mount/mount.cifs: No dialect specified on mount. Default has changed to a more secure dialect, SMB3 (vers=3.0), from CIFS (SMB1). To use the less secure SMB1 dialect to access old servers which do not support SMB3 specify vers=1.0 on mount. For somewhat newer servers such as Windows 7 try vers=2.1. CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code = -112 > 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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 -- 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
