kill security=share and security=server

[simo]

On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 13:19 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 04:07:46PM -0500, simo wrote:
> > 
> > If I understood chris message correctly, you are ""not breaking"
> > smb.conf but you are braking share level security for smb1, so you are
> > breaking actual use cases.
> 
> No, I'm not. I'm mapping share level security for smb1 into
> something we already do internally.
> 
> Look - the only clients that use share level security *ON
> THE WIRE* are Win9x and prior.
> 
> Remember, Samba has *never* supported share level security
> on the server (i.e. you can't set a global password for a
> share) - we have *always* mapped into UNIX users - even before
> Win9x was common.
> 
> What we did was take the password sent in the TCON when
> the server tells the client it was using share level security,
> and then tried to find an existing UNIX user for whom that
> smbpassword matches.
> 
> What the proposed patch does is stop allowing that negotiation
> on the wire - so clients now *HAVE* to do an SMBsessionsetup
> call, not just a TCON call to connect.
> 
> That's why it's such a small patch - it just removes how we
> read the passwords off the wire for the old style TCON, and
> removes the code that allows clients to send invalid VUIDs
> for connections in "share level" security.
> 
> The only possible clients this might break are DOS 3.x
> clients.
> 
> > I'd prefer to limit security=share to smb1 without breaking how the
> > server works in that case.
> 
> It doesn't break the server.
> 
> > This is equally compatible, as secuirty=share will still works with smb1
> > as it did before, so nothing breacks with it.
> > 
> > If the user wants to use new features (smb2) then it will have to change
> > the config. This is perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> I want to move us to a case where share level security doesn't
> exist anymore, for SMB1 or SMB2.
> 
> I'm ok with doing that for Samba4 only, but I do want to get
> there. And I want to do it without breaking anyones existing
> working config.
> 
> Jeremy.

I see no problems in doing that for 3.6
As long as we have a decent solution.

If you say your patch cause no issues with clients I'll give it a +1

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>