On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 05:05:10AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
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?
Given that this was due to an issue with the backport, I'd say just
write a new commit message explaining what happened, and point the fixes
tag to c5049d2d73b2 ("ksmbd: add support for key exchange")
--
Thanks,
Sasha
