2023-03-23 11:53 GMT+09:00, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On (23/03/21 22:33), Namjae Jeon wrote:
> [..]
>> @@ -442,9 +442,26 @@ static int smb_handle_negotiate(struct ksmbd_work
>> *work)
>> {
>> struct smb_negotiate_rsp *neg_rsp = work->response_buf;
>>
>> - ksmbd_debug(SMB, "Unsupported SMB protocol\n");
>> - neg_rsp->hdr.Status.CifsError = STATUS_INVALID_LOGON_TYPE;
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + ksmbd_debug(SMB, "Unsupported SMB1 protocol\n");
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Remove 4 byte direct TCP header, add 1 byte wc, 2 byte bcc
>> + * and 2 byte DialectIndex.
>> + */
>> + *(__be32 *)work->response_buf =
>> + cpu_to_be32(sizeof(struct smb_hdr) - 4 + 2 + 2);
>
> In other words cpu_to_be32(sizeof(struct smb_hdr)).
Yes, that's possible too, but wouldn't this make the comments easier
to understand..?
>
>> + neg_rsp->hdr.Status.CifsError = STATUS_SUCCESS;
>> +
>> + neg_rsp->hdr.Command = SMB_COM_NEGOTIATE;
>> + *(__le32 *)neg_rsp->hdr.Protocol = SMB1_PROTO_NUMBER;
>
> I assume this should say cpu_to_le32(SMB1_PROTO_NUMBER).
SMB1_PROTO_NUMBER is declared as:
#define SMB1_PROTO_NUMBER cpu_to_le32(0x424d53ff)
Thanks!
>
