Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751953AbdIAAaH (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:30:07 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.83.44]:37403 "EHLO mail-pg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751787AbdIAAaD (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:30:03 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb4LCq0rQCE9YhxlEa5HBduvMMqyqS5Wp8DpmYYgso4VAexdqdH4qdPfavAd137sqVGRl7OpEjB9yh3zgwovBOA= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1504213298-27431-1-git-send-email-linux@leemhuis.info> From: Steve French Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:29:42 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: Revert move default dialect from CIFS to to SMB3 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" , Pavel Shilovsky , Jeff Layton Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1558 Lines: 42 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 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 >> 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