Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752258AbdIASXm (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:23:42 -0400 Received: from ishtar.tlinx.org ([173.164.175.65]:52072 "EHLO Ishtar.sc.tlinx.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752092AbdIASXl (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:23:41 -0400 Message-ID: <59A9A59E.6040205@tlinx.org> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:23:26 -0700 From: "L. A. Walsh" User-Agent: Thunderbird MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Thorsten Leemhuis , Steve French , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" , Pavel Shilovsky Subject: Re: RFC: Revert move default dialect from CIFS to to SMB3 References: <1504213298-27431-1-git-send-email-linux@leemhuis.info> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1423 Lines: 36 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" > ---- 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 indicated a need to upgrade to 3.x for security reasons. 3.x may have new security features, no argument, but that doesn't mean 2.1, is insecure. > I do *not* believe that "default to version 1" is acceptable. > --- But does it have to jump to 3? I.e. Why not go a more middle route of 2.1 -- as it is still security-supported by MS. Ideally MS would find some bug in 2.1 and allow 3.x to be an upgrade to Win7, but until then... Linda