CentOS - Jun 2018 - Specifying different options for different " smb" type gvfs mount

Hi,

I'm trying to use smb:// URLs with gvfs-mount and/or similar desktop 
functionality to access SMB shares on different servers that support 
different protocol versions and features. With some of the servers, 
mount will fail with a default configuration, but I have been able to 
make it work by editing some of the "client" options in 
/etc/samba/smb.conf. The problem is, those changes will cause the 
operation to fail on other servers; I can't seem to find a combination 
of settings where all shares will work.

Does anyone know if there is an alternative way to specify client 
options that will apply to only specific URLs/shares, and not everything 
of SMB type? Note that I might be able to get by if I could set the "max 
protocol" individually for the different file-systems or URLs.

I known that I might use mount.cifs and related "fstab" entries as an 
alternative, but its password handling seems a lot less convenient.

I'm on a CentOS 7 system where all updates had been applied as of a few 
days ago.

Thanks,

- Toralf

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Toralf Lund wrote:
> I known that I might use mount.cifs and related "fstab" entries
as an
> alternative, but its password handling seems a lot less convenient.
If you're in an AD environment, you can probably do nicely with mount.cifs:

sec=krb5,multiuser

That way you don't have to deal with usernames/passwords at all.

jh

On 06/21/2018 05:09 AM, John Hodrien wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Toralf Lund wrote:
>
>> I known that I might use mount.cifs and related "fstab"
entries as an
>> alternative, but its password handling seems a lot less convenient.
>
> If you're in an AD environment, you can probably do nicely with 
> mount.cifs:
> sec=krb5,multiuser
> That way you don't have to deal with usernames/passwords at all. 
Interesting.? Seems like a lot of setup, but it's interesting.? I didn't
know SMB supported this:

https://access.redhat.com/solutions/279183

On 21/06/18 14:09, John Hodrien wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Toralf Lund wrote:
>
>> I known that I might use mount.cifs and related "fstab"
entries as an
>> alternative, but its password handling seems a lot less convenient.
>
> If you're in an AD environment, you can probably do nicely with 
> mount.cifs:
Well, I'm not. Or the CentOS machine is not configured for it, anyway. 
Might be possible to do, but I'm not entirely sure it would be worth the 
effort.

- Toralf

>
> sec=krb5,multiuser
>
> That way you don't have to deal with usernames/passwords at all.
>
> jh
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.centos.org_mailman_listinfo_centos&d=DwICAg&c=KV_I7O14pmwRcmAVyJ1eg4Jwb8Y2JAxuL5YgMGHpjcQ&r=Q0oqxzgUp3xCCIiJDwS-RbNDndQ-KZDhj8wwveNoqU4&m=tjPm9TrBI_sodSKxipBHSBeTtrzqGiPQ-GvbwhbK8qo&s=54vPa_7ySn8NlCa0GF4dXQAAF-EYwEbbgBEY58kiWKA&e=
>