Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.20

[Steve French <smfltc@us.ibm.com>]

Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <4579AFA5.90003@us.ibm.com>
>
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:32:05 -0600, Steve French wrote:
>
>   
>> smbfs deprecation is ok but there are a few things to consider:
>>     
>
> How well-tested is the plaintext password support?
>
> By default the /proc/fs/cifs/SecurityFlags setting is 0x7 (MAY_SIGN |
> MAY_NTLM | MAYNTLMV2). Trying to connect to an old Samba server
> with that, I got a message that the server requested a plain text
> password but client support was disabled.
>
> After changing the flags to 0x37 (adding MAY_LANMAN | MAY_PLNTXT),
> I got "invalid password." Looking at the ethereal traces, it seemed
> that the password was being sent as encrypted Unicode, and the only
> way to make it connect was to set the flags to 0x30.
>   
I don't remember any problems reported with plain text password
support on current cifs and I have certainly seen it negotiated with no 
problem,
but I will double check with your reported flag combination.
> Also, the client doesn't automatically pick up the domain name from
> smb.conf like smbfs does.
>
>   
That is true, and is intentional.   cifs sends a domain of null (ie use 
the server's
default domain) - but it can be overridden on mount