2023-12-26 23:59 GMT+09:00, Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 07:53:26PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote: >>[ Upstream commit f9929ef6a2a55f03aac61248c6a3a987b8546f2a ] >> >>When mounting cifs client, can see the following warning message. >> >>CIFS: decode_ntlmssp_challenge: authentication has been weakened as server >>does not support key exchange >> >>To remove this warning message, Add support for key exchange feature to >>ksmbd. This patch decrypts 16-byte ciphertext value sent by the client >>using RC4 with session key. The decrypted value is the recovered secondary >>key that will use instead of the session key for signing and sealing. >> >>Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxxx> >>Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>--- >> fs/Kconfig | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >>diff --git a/fs/Kconfig b/fs/Kconfig >>index a6313a969bc5..971339ecc1a2 100644 >>--- a/fs/Kconfig >>+++ b/fs/Kconfig >>@@ -369,8 +369,8 @@ source "fs/ksmbd/Kconfig" >> >> config SMBFS_COMMON >> tristate >>- default y if CIFS=y >>- default m if CIFS=m >>+ default y if CIFS=y || SMB_SERVER=y >>+ default m if CIFS=m || SMB_SERVER=m >> >> source "fs/coda/Kconfig" >> source "fs/afs/Kconfig" > > This looks really weird: the hunk above is in the original upstream > patch, but what happened to the rest of the upstream code? > > This change doesn't do what the message describing it says it does. There was a problem(omitted some changes) in the previous backport patch, I didn't know what to do, so I just sent a patch like this. Should I add it again after reverting the patch or just updating the patch description? > > -- > Thanks, > Sasha >
