Re: RFC: Revert move default dialect from CIFS to to SMB3

[Steve French]

Yes - updating the parsing slightly and printks as suggested makes sense

Some additional warning messages in the userspace helper (adding Jeff
Layton), mount.cifs can also help.

I also have an experimental set of patches to allow multi-dialect
negotiation with at least three of the acceptable dialects
(smb2.1/smb3/smb3.02) which will help, but complicate secure dialect
validation ("validate negotiate") but that will have to wait till next
release.

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Lo! To give a bit more background to this (the mail I reply to was the
>> first I sent with git send-email and I missed some details): Maybe I'm
>> over stretching my abilities/position as regression tracker with this
>> RFC for a revert, but I hope it at least triggers a discussion if such a
>> revert should be done or not.
>
> I don't think that a revert is appropriate.
>
> But perhaps just a single printk() or something if the user does *not*
> specify the version explicitly? Just saying something like
>
>   We used to default to 1.0, we now default to 3.0, if you want old
> defaults, use "vers=1.0"
>
> Oh, looking at that version parsing code, I think we also need to fix
> that legacy "ver=1" thing (ver without the 's') which now silently
> ignores "ver=1" as being the "default", even though it's not.
>
> I do *not* believe that "default to version 1" is acceptable.
>
>                 Linus



-- 
Thanks,

Steve