Re: Problem with CIFS

[Steve French]

>Can you show me where the problem is ? 
>Currently in smbd/negprot.c we have :
>
> /* do spnego in user level security if the client
> supports it and we can do encrypted passwords*/ 
>
>  if (global_encrypted_passwords_negotiated &&
>            (lp_security() != SEC_SHARE) &&
>            lp_use_spnego() &&
>            (SVAL(inbuf, smb_flg2) & FLAGS2_EXTENDED_SECURITY)) {
>                negotiate_spnego = True;
>                capabilities |= CAP_EXTENDED_SECURITY;
>        }

I think Samba is just missing the else clause in smbd/negprot.c(since
reply_common sets FLAGS2_EXTENDED_SECURITY otherwise). Something like:

        else {
                remove_from_common_flags2(FLAGS2_EXTENDED_SECURITY);
                SSVAL(outbuf,smb_flg2,(SVAL(outbuf,smb_flg2) &
			 (~FLAGS2_EXTENDED_SECURITY)));
        }

but in any case I have to workaround it in the Linux cifs client by
paying more attention to the capability bit than to the actual smb flag



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/