svn commit: samba r6219 - in branches/SAMBA_4_0/source:
abartlet at samba.org
Tue Apr 5 22:33:26 GMT 2005
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 19:53 +0000, sharpe at samba.org wrote:
> Author: sharpe
> Date: 2005-04-05 19:53:07 +0000 (Tue, 05 Apr 2005)
> New Revision: 6219
> WebSVN: http://websvn.samba.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi?view=rev&root=samba&rev=6219
> This change allows us to fall back to authenticating without
> DCERPC_SCHANNEL_128 if we fail. Thus, it allows us to work with Windows
> NT DCs ...
That patch is fine for now, but I'll rework things to avoid as much of
the reconnect as possible.
More generally to the list - should 'quality of protection' be bundled
in with the credentials code? I'm wondering about abstracting the
GENSEC 'want' and 'have' features back into credentials, the logic being
'if you want to use this password, you must meet this criteria'. Being
in the credentials code should also allow it to be used for 'basic'
The defaults would of course come from the config file, where we would
want 128 bit signed connections always, but accept 56.
> Modified: branches/SAMBA_4_0/source/ntvfs/posix/pvfs_search.c
> --- branches/SAMBA_4_0/source/ntvfs/posix/pvfs_search.c 2005-04-05 17:49:16 UTC (rev 6218)
> +++ branches/SAMBA_4_0/source/ntvfs/posix/pvfs_search.c 2005-04-05 19:53:07 UTC (rev 6219)
> @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@
> - pvfs_list_hibernate(dir);
> + /*pvfs_list_hibernate(dir);*/
> return NT_STATUS_OK;
Was this part intentional?
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20050406/8404ef3b/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical