Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752512AbdIATpq (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:45:46 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f48.google.com ([209.85.214.48]:36783 "EHLO mail-it0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752312AbdIATpn (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:45:43 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb562cOipWHjtU4hliApyqAAxzVlzDuNCROmOkTjBEgH5DCgi3ifAYknIMhhtDLIeh9iTiWPFYo3OuC1d/0mWzU= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <59A9A59E.6040205@tlinx.org> References: <1504213298-27431-1-git-send-email-linux@leemhuis.info> <59A9A59E.6040205@tlinx.org> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:45:42 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: MAcUfyknOlwkxAvrmmKD3VgTKlM Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: Revert move default dialect from CIFS to to SMB3 To: "L. A. Walsh" Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis , Steve French , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" , Pavel Shilovsky 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: 775 Lines: 17 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 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'm certainly ok with changing the default to 2.1 if that helps people. Is that actually likely to help the people who now see problems with the existing 3.0 default? I don't know the exact security issue details with cifs, but I _think_ it was explicitly _only_ smb-1.0, right? Linus