On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 19:29 +0800, Tai-hwa Liang wrote:> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Bachilo Dmitry wrote: > > I've cvsuped from 6.0 to 6.1-PRERELEASE and now I can't mount NT's shares with > > password. It worked fine before, but after cvsup i get > > mount_smbfs: unable to open connection: syserr = Authentication error > > and in /var/log/messages I get > > Feb 21 14:51:24 notebook kernel: netsmb_dev: loaded > > Feb 21 14:51:27 notebook kernel: smb_encrypt: password encryption is not > > available > > Feb 21 14:51:27 notebook kernel: smb_ntencrypt: password encryption is not > > available > > > > As far as I see, there is no option in mount_smbfs to disable password > > "options NETSMBCRYPTO" in kernel configuartion file. > > > encryption, so I'm just stuck, what should I do? > > Thanks in advance. > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2006-January/059823.htmlIs there a reason this change was made? And is there a reason why NETSMBCRYPTO is not in GENERIC? To me, it seems that breaking smbfs between releases within 6.x violates POLA... I suspect a large number of people (myself included) have always used smbfs for passworded shares and it's "just worked". Moved to stable, where it belongs. Gavin
Gavin Atkinson wrote:>On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 19:29 +0800, Tai-hwa Liang wrote: > > >>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Bachilo Dmitry wrote: >> >> >>>I've cvsuped from 6.0 to 6.1-PRERELEASE and now I can't mount NT's shares with >>>password. It worked fine before, but after cvsup i get >>>mount_smbfs: unable to open connection: syserr = Authentication error >>>and in /var/log/messages I get >>>Feb 21 14:51:24 notebook kernel: netsmb_dev: loaded >>>Feb 21 14:51:27 notebook kernel: smb_encrypt: password encryption is not >>>available >>>Feb 21 14:51:27 notebook kernel: smb_ntencrypt: password encryption is not >>>available >>> >>>As far as I see, there is no option in mount_smbfs to disable password >>> >>> >> "options NETSMBCRYPTO" in kernel configuartion file. >> >> >> >>>encryption, so I'm just stuck, what should I do? >>>Thanks in advance. >>> >>> >>http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2006-January/059823.html >> >> > >Is there a reason this change was made? And is there a reason why >NETSMBCRYPTO is not in GENERIC? To me, it seems that breaking smbfs >between releases within 6.x violates POLA... I suspect a large number of >people (myself included) have always used smbfs for passworded shares >and it's "just worked". > >Moved to stable, where it belongs. > >I agree. I recently tried to port some fixes for the "smb unmapped error 1:157" bug from NetBSD and was bitten by this change. Putting NETSMBCRYPTO in GENERIC and in /usr/src/UPDATING is one option, or changing the default to on, moving it NO_NETSMBCRYTPO and a note in /usr/src/UPDATING is another. Steve
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:04:54AM +0000, Gavin Atkinson wrote:> On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 19:29 +0800, Tai-hwa Liang wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Bachilo Dmitry wrote: > > > I've cvsuped from 6.0 to 6.1-PRERELEASE and now I can't mount NT's shares with > > > password. It worked fine before, but after cvsup i get > > > mount_smbfs: unable to open connection: syserr = Authentication error > > > and in /var/log/messages I get > > > Feb 21 14:51:24 notebook kernel: netsmb_dev: loaded > > > Feb 21 14:51:27 notebook kernel: smb_encrypt: password encryption is not > > > available > > > Feb 21 14:51:27 notebook kernel: smb_ntencrypt: password encryption is not > > > available > > > > > > As far as I see, there is no option in mount_smbfs to disable password > > > > "options NETSMBCRYPTO" in kernel configuartion file. > > > > > encryption, so I'm just stuck, what should I do? > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2006-January/059823.html > > Is there a reason this change was made? And is there a reason whyThe change wasn't against NETSMBCRYPTO, it just corrected the way kernel modules get their options.> NETSMBCRYPTO is not in GENERIC? To me, it seems that breaking smbfs > between releases within 6.x violates POLA... I suspect a large number of > people (myself included) have always used smbfs for passworded shares > and it's "just worked".This issue is under investigation by the Release Engineers and yours truly. I'm sorry my change to the kernel module framework caused the confusion, but so the whole issue has got attention at last. Of course, it must be fixed before 6.1-R. In the meanwhile, I'd like to hear about any reservations on making NETSMBCRYPTO the default case for netsmb/smbfs. Thanks! -- Yar
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Yar Tikhiy wrote:> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:04:54AM +0000, Gavin Atkinson wrote: >> Is there a reason this change was made? And is there a reason why > > The change wasn't against NETSMBCRYPTO, it just corrected the way > kernel modules get their options. > >> NETSMBCRYPTO is not in GENERIC? To me, it seems that breaking smbfs >> between releases within 6.x violates POLA... I suspect a large number of >> people (myself included) have always used smbfs for passworded shares >> and it's "just worked". > > This issue is under investigation by the Release Engineers and yours > truly. I'm sorry my change to the kernel module framework caused > the confusion, but so the whole issue has got attention at last. > Of course, it must be fixed before 6.1-R. In the meanwhile, I'd > like to hear about any reservations on making NETSMBCRYPTO the > default case for netsmb/smbfs. Thanks!I don't see any problem with making it the default case, since before the framework cleanup, it effectively was default. Gavin