smbmount and smbfs (was Re: smbmount et al...)

Bill Hawes whawes at
Tue Sep 29 15:25:02 GMT 1998

Michael H. Warfield wrote:

> Andrew Tridgell enscribed thusly:
> > you might like to change smbfs to look at the capabilities bits from
> > the negprot response:
> > if (capabilities & CAP_NT_SMBS) {
> >   use_nt_code();
> > } else {
> >   use_win95_code();
> > }
> > or should smbmount do this and pass a flag to the kernel?
>         I think the later...  Luke and I and Dave LeBlanc (my evil NT
> twin at Internet Security Systems) were discussing this today.  Dave
> thinks that doing a "GetServerInfo" at the appropriate level should
> give the information we are looking for.  There are bits which will
> identify WfWg and W95.  We can apply appropriate discrimination at
> the time the connection is established.

It sounds reasonable to me to let smbmount make a determination of the
appropriate bug-fix flags based on its protocol negotiation. Right now the only
flag that's needed is the w95 workaround -- WfWg should work OK based on its
protocol level, and NT will work provided the w95 workarounds aren't turned on.

Hopefully the situation won't change with w98 or future NT releases, but if they
do we'll just have to update the utilities and kernel as needed.

To implement auto-selection of bug-fixes, perhaps smbmount can pass a "server
type" argument to smbmnt, and smbmnt can fold that into the appropriate -f


More information about the samba-technical mailing list