Hi! Just a quick feedback from my side.
After reading Andrew explanation in this thread about the "movement
against SMB1" I kind of think "maybe the proposed revert for 4.13 and
doing it properly in 4.14 would really have been a good fit". But
whatever, doesn't bother me much any more:
Steve Fren
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>
> My quick research shows:
>
> SMB 2.1 but not SMB3 is on:
> Windows 7
> Windows 8
> Windows 2008
> Windows 2012
> Samba 3.6 and earlier (SMB1 only by default)
>
> SMB3 is on:
> Windows 8.1
> Windows 2012 R2
> Windows 10
> Windows
On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 20:56 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Steve French wrote:
> >
> > The default was SMB1 (CIFS) and was recently changed to SMB3.
> > The dialect still can be overridden by specifying "vers=1.0" or "vers=2.1"
> > etc. on mount.
> >
> > We just p
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Steve French wrote:
>
> The default was SMB1 (CIFS) and was recently changed to SMB3.
> The dialect still can be overridden by specifying "vers=1.0" or "vers=2.1"
> etc. on mount.
>
> We just put together a patch to better explain the default changes
> (with additio
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:23 AM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
>>Why be incompatible with the majority of Windows installations?
>> I.e. If you really want to up security from 1.0 (not adverse to that),
>> then why not go to 2.1 as used by Win7?
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:23 AM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
>Why be incompatible with the majority of Windows installations?
> I.e. If you really want to up security from 1.0 (not adverse to that),
> then why not go to 2.1 as used by Win7? Win7 is still in support
> from MS -- and they haven't indic
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis 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
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:04 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>
>> This reverts commit eef914a9eb5eb83e60eb498315a491cd1edc13a1 (
>> [SMB3] Improve security, move default dialect to SMB3 from old CIFS), as
>> it confuses users: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196599
>
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 dia
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
This reverts commit eef914a9eb5eb83e60eb498315a491cd1edc13a1 (
[SMB3] Improve security, move default dialect to SMB3 from old CIFS),
as it confuses users: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196599
It was a patch to improve security by switching to SMB3 by defa
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis 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, bu
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
This reverts commit eef914a9eb5eb83e60eb498315a491cd1edc13a1 (
[SMB3] Improve security, move default dialect to SMB3 from old CIFS),
as it confuses users: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196599
It was a patch to improve security by switching to SMB3 by default and
support SMB1 (aka CI
13 matches
Mail list logo
