On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 13:15, Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I noticed we should be running more tests to kerberos mounts e.g. > cifs-utils/102. > > Did I miss any? Any thoughts about running this as part of the main > cifs-testing group as well? Adding more kerberos tests? That sounds good. In libsmb2 I had issues in the past with kerberos and gss-api wrapping ntlmssp and in this combination neither sign or seal would work because the combination of kerberos implementation (mit) and ntlmssp I used could not provide the session key to the application. I think at the very least we should have one test to verify kerberos with krb5, kerberos with ntlmssp and also in combination with both sign and seal. Not all tests, it should be enough with one test of each case and that could just be to test we can mount and access the share, so the tests should run very quickly. Possibly we should have this small block of tests against all servers where it is possible, Windows/Samba/ksmbd/azure > > We also need to create a test group for very current Samba (and also > ksmbd) running with posix mount option to make sure we don't have any > bugs show up as they continue to finish up the server side of this > support. > > -- > Thanks, > > Steve
