[linux-cifs-client] Re: New Proxy Unix CAP

Steve French smfrench at gmail.com
Thu Apr 24 16:34:45 GMT 2008


arggh - just made a typo - will fix.  Jeremy's note reminded me -
0x20c is the next free one.

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Steve French <smfrench at gmail.com> wrote:
> I fixed the fs/cifs/cifspdu.h in the cifs-2.6.git tree and will merge
>  it upstream with the corrected value.
>
>  The capability flag also needed to be shifted down by two to account
>  for the transport encryption.  See below:
>
>  commit ee4987ab5cc9d00be38cfeec90174229565211be
>  Author: Steve French <sfrench at us.ibm.com>
>  Date:   Thu Apr 24 16:31:12 2008 +0000
>
>     [CIFS] Fix define for new proxy cap to match documentation
>
>     The transport encryption capability and new SetFSInfo level were
>  missing, and the
>     new proxy capability (which Samba server is implementing) and
>  proxy setfsinfo needed
>     to be moved down to not collide with Samba's transport encryption
>  capability.
>
>     CC: Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org>
>     CC: Sam Liddicott <sam at lidicott.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Steve French <sfrench at us.ibm.com>
>
>  diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifspdu.h b/fs/cifs/cifspdu.h
>  index b18c6d4..3b889bc 100644
>  --- a/fs/cifs/cifspdu.h
>  +++ b/fs/cifs/cifspdu.h
>  @@ -1787,7 +1787,8 @@ typedef struct smb_com_transaction2_fnext_rsp_parms {
>   #define SMB_QUERY_CIFS_UNIX_INFO    0x200
>   #define SMB_QUERY_POSIX_FS_INFO     0x201
>   #define SMB_QUERY_POSIX_WHO_AM_I    0x202
>  -#define SMB_QUERY_FS_PROXY          0x203 /* WAFS enabled. Returns structure
>  +#define SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION 0x203
>  +#define SMB_QUERY_FS_PROXY          0x204 /* WAFS enabled. Returns structure
>                                             FILE_SYSTEM__UNIX_INFO to tell
>                                             whether new NTIOCTL available
>                                             (0xACE) for WAN friendly SMB
>  @@ -2048,7 +2049,9 @@ typedef struct {
>   #define CIFS_UNIX_LARGE_READ_CAP        0x00000040 /* support reads >128K (up
>                                                       to 0xFFFF00 */
>   #define CIFS_UNIX_LARGE_WRITE_CAP       0x00000080
>  -#define CIFS_UNIX_PROXY_CAP             0x00000100 /* Proxy cap:
>  0xACE ioctl and
>  +#define CIFS_UNIX_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION_ 0x00000100 /* can do SPNEGO encrypt */
>  +#define CIFS_UNIX_TRANPSORT_ENCRYPTION  0x00000200 /* must do SPNEGO encrypt */
>  +#define CIFS_UNIX_PROXY_CAP             0x00000400 /* Proxy cap:
>  0xACE ioctl and
>                                                       QFS PROXY call */
>   #ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_POSIX
>   /* Can not set pathnames cap yet until we send new posix create SMB since
>
>
>
>
>  On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Sam Liddicott <sam at liddicott.com> wrote:
>  >
>  >  * Jeremy Allison wrote, On 24/04/08 17:14:
>  >
>  >  On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:59:33PM +0100, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >  * Sam Liddicott wrote, On 21/04/08 09:44:
>  >
>  >
>  >  * James Peach wrote, On 20/04/08 18:33:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  If so, could you please add documentation to
>  > <http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/UNIX_Extensions>, or a page that is
>  > linked from there.
>  >
>  >
>  >  It seems that 0x003 was already taken:
>  >
>  > http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/UNIX_Extensions
>  >
>  > says:
>  > SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION 0x203 Call to set up an encryption
>  > context.
>  >
>  >
>  > I think it was erroneously in File Info (and Path Info) levels and then
>  > just moved.
>  >
>  > Steve, I guess we need 0x204, or shall I change the docs to squash on
>  > SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION?
>  >
>  >  No, SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION is used in current 3.2 code
>  > as a SETFSINFO sub code. 0x204 is used 0x20C is the next unused
>  > SETFILEINFO sub code.
>  >
>  >  I think I want an FSINFO sub-code not a FILEINFO sub-code, so 0x204 is OK?
>  >
>  >  Or am I confused?
>  >
>  >  Sam
>  >
>
>
>
>  --
>  Thanks,
>
>  Steve
>



-- 
Thanks,

Steve


More information about the linux-cifs-client mailing list