cifs: fix the kernel release version in the default security warning message

PATCH In review Suresh Jayaraman 4 participants 8 messages Jun 3, 2011 5 messages not in the archive

Subsystems (2)

SMB client (CIFS) Kernel SMB3 server (ksmbd)

lore

Share & tools

lore

Suresh Jayaraman

author

2011-06-03 06:36 UTC #0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 cifs: fix the kernel release version in the default security warning message

When ntlm security mechanim is used, the message that warns about the upgrade to ntlmv2 got the kernel release version wrong (Blame it on Linus :). Fix it.

Signed-off-by Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]>

---
 fs/cifs/connect.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

fs/cifs/connect.c +1 -1

index 6d88b82..84c7307 100644
@@ -1976,7 +1976,7 @@ cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info)
 		warned_on_ntlm = true;
 		cERROR(1, "default security mechanism requested.  The default "
 			"security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm to "
-			"ntlmv2 in kernel release 2.6.41");
+			"ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.1");
 	}
 	ses->overrideSecFlg = volume_info->secFlg;

Signature · 1 line

1.7.1

Jeff Layton

Reviewed-by

2011-06-03 13:11 UTC #2 lore raw

In reply to a message not in the archive

Quoted 14 lines · On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:06:19 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman…

When ntlm security mechanim is used, the message that warns about the upgrade to ntlmv2 got the kernel release version wrong (Blame it on Linus :). Fix it.
Signed-off-by Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]>
---
 fs/cifs/connect.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
fs/cifs/connect.c +0 -0
index 6d88b82..84c7307 100644

fs/cifs/connect.c cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info) · line 1982

Quoted 8 lines

fs/cifs/connect.c +1 -1

@@ -1976,7 +1976,7 @@ cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info)
 		warned_on_ntlm = true;
 		cERROR(1, "default security mechanism requested.  The default "
 			"security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm to "
-			"ntlmv2 in kernel release 2.6.41");
+			"ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.1");
 	}
 	ses->overrideSecFlg = volume_info->secFlg;

Looks good. Though I'm not sure whether we should call it 3.1.0? Regardless...

Reviewed-by Jeff Layton <[email protected]>

Steve French

2011-06-03 15:31 UTC #12 lore raw

In reply to a message not in the archive

merged

Quoted 25 lines · Suresh Jayaraman

When ntlm security mechanim is used, the message that warns about the upgrade to ntlmv2 got the kernel release version wrong (Blame it on Linus :). Fix it.
Signed-off-by Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]>
---
fs/cifs/connect.c | 2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
fs/cifs/connect.c +0 -0
index 6d88b82..84c7307 100644
@@ -1976,7 +1976,7 @@ cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info)
                warned_on_ntlm = true;
cERROR(1, "default security mechanism requested. The default " "security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm to "
- "ntlmv2 in kernel release 2.6.41");
+ "ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.1");
}
ses->overrideSecFlg = volume_info->secFlg;
--
1.7.1

Signature · 3 lines

Thanks,

Steve

Suresh Jayaraman

author

2011-06-03 16:06 UTC #4 lore raw

In reply to a message not in the archive

Quoted 12 lines · Jeff Layton

Quoted 9 lines · On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:06:19 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman…
When ntlm security mechanim is used, the message that warns about the upgrade to ntlmv2 got the kernel release version wrong (Blame it on Linus :). Fix it.
Signed-off-by Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]>
---
 fs/cifs/connect.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

Quoted 16 lines

fs/cifs/connect.c cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info) · line 1982
Quoted 13 lines
fs/cifs/connect.c +1 -1
index 6d88b82..84c7307 100644
@@ -1976,7 +1976,7 @@ cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info)
 		warned_on_ntlm = true;
 		cERROR(1, "default security mechanism requested.  The default "
 			"security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm to "
-			"ntlmv2 in kernel release 2.6.41");
+			"ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.1");
 	}
 	ses->overrideSecFlg = volume_info->secFlg;
 
Looks good. Though I'm not sure whether we should call it 3.1.0? Regardless...

I thought about this. But, as Linus has already said:

"Now, my alpha-maleness sadly does not actually extend to all the scripts and Makefile rules, so the kernel is fighting back, and is calling itself 3.0.0-rc1. We'll have the usual 6-7 weeks to wrestle it into submission, and get scripts etc cleaned up, and the final release should be just "3.0". The -stable team can use the third number for their versioning."

I think 3.1 should be ok?

Quoted 5 lines

Reviewed-by Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Signature · 1 line

Suresh Jayaraman

Steve French

2011-06-03 16:26 UTC #6 lore raw

In reply to a message not in the archive

Quoted 32 lines · Suresh Jayaraman

Quoted 12 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 9 lines · On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:06:19 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman…
When ntlm security mechanim is used, the message that warns about the upgrade to ntlmv2 got the kernel release version wrong (Blame it on Linus :). Fix it.
Signed-off-by Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]>
---
fs/cifs/connect.c | 2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 6 lines
fs/cifs/connect.c +0 -0
index 6d88b82..84c7307 100644
@@ -1976,7 +1976,7 @@ cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info)
              warned_on_ntlm = true;
Quoted 7 lines
cERROR(1, "default security mechanism requested. The default " "security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm to "
- "ntlmv2 in kernel release 2.6.41");
+ "ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.1");
}
ses->overrideSecFlg = volume_info->secFlg;
Looks good. Though I'm not sure whether we should call it 3.1.0? Regardless...
I thought about this. But, as Linus has already said:

Quoted 8 lines

"Now, my alpha-maleness sadly does not actually extend to all the scripts and Makefile rules, so the kernel is fighting back, and is calling itself 3.0.0-rc1. We'll have the usual 6-7 weeks to wrestle it into submission, and get scripts etc cleaned up, and the final release should be just "3.0". The -stable team can use the third number for their versioning."
I think 3.1 should be ok?

Yes.

Signature · 3 lines

Thanks,

Steve

Jeff Layton

2011-06-03 16:37 UTC #7 lore raw

In reply to a message not in the archive

Quoted 32 lines · On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:36:01 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman…

Quoted 12 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 9 lines · On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:06:19 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman…
When ntlm security mechanim is used, the message that warns about the upgrade to ntlmv2 got the kernel release version wrong (Blame it on Linus :). Fix it.
Signed-off-by Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]>
---
 fs/cifs/connect.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Quoted 16 lines
fs/cifs/connect.c cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info) · line 1982
Quoted 13 lines
fs/cifs/connect.c +1 -1
index 6d88b82..84c7307 100644
@@ -1976,7 +1976,7 @@ cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info)
 		warned_on_ntlm = true;
 		cERROR(1, "default security mechanism requested.  The default "
 			"security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm to "
-			"ntlmv2 in kernel release 2.6.41");
+			"ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.1");
 	}
 	ses->overrideSecFlg = volume_info->secFlg;
 
Looks good. Though I'm not sure whether we should call it 3.1.0? Regardless...
I thought about this. But, as Linus has already said:

Quoted 9 lines

"Now, my alpha-maleness sadly does not actually extend to all the scripts and Makefile rules, so the kernel is fighting back, and is calling itself 3.0.0-rc1. We'll have the usual 6-7 weeks to wrestle it into submission, and get scripts etc cleaned up, and the final release should be just "3.0". The -stable team can use the third number for their versioning."
I think 3.1 should be ok?

Pity -- would have been sort of nice to always use a 3 field version number since the stable kernels will need that, but...not my call. Either way, patch is fine.

Signature · 1 line

Jeff Layton <[email protected]>

Scott Lovenberg

2011-06-03 17:38 UTC #9 lore raw

In reply to a message not in the archive

Quoted 39 lines · Jeff Layton

Quoted 36 lines · On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:36:01 +0530 Suresh…
Quoted 11 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 8 lines · On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:06:19 +0530 Suresh…
When ntlm security mechanim is used, the message that warns about the upgrade to ntlmv2 got the kernel release version wrong (Blame it on Linus :). Fix it.
Signed-off-by Suresh Jayaraman<[email protected]>
---
  fs/cifs/connect.c |    2 +-
  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Quoted 15 lines
fs/cifs/connect.c cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info) · line 1982
Quoted 13 lines
fs/cifs/connect.c +1 -1
index 6d88b82..84c7307 100644
@@ -1976,7 +1976,7 @@ cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct smb_vol *volume_info)
  		warned_on_ntlm = true;
  		cERROR(1, "default security mechanism requested.  The default "
  			"security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm to "
-			"ntlmv2 in kernel release 2.6.41");
+			"ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.1");
  	}
  	ses->overrideSecFlg = volume_info->secFlg;
 
Looks good. Though I'm not sure whether we should call it 3.1.0? Regardless...
I thought about this. But, as Linus has already said:
"Now, my alpha-maleness sadly does not actually extend to all the scripts and Makefile rules, so the kernel is fighting back, and is calling itself 3.0.0-rc1. We'll have the usual 6-7 weeks to wrestle it into submission, and get scripts etc cleaned up, and the final release should be just "3.0". The -stable team can use the third number for their versioning."

Quoted 5 lines

Quoted 2 lines
I think 3.1 should be ok?
Pity -- would have been sort of nice to always use a 3 field version number since the stable kernels will need that, but...not my call. Either way, patch is fine.

I think 3.0 was being called 3.0.0 officially because some scripts broke without a "major.minor.revision" scheme. At least for the moment, according to Linus' commit message.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=55922c9d1b84b89cb946c777fddccb3247e7df2c

Steve French

2011-06-03 17:41 UTC #11 lore raw

In reply to a message not in the archive

Quoted 50 lines · Scott Lovenberg

Quoted 49 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 45 lines · On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:36:01 +0530 Suresh…
Quoted 24 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 20 lines · On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:06:19 +0530 Suresh…
When ntlm security mechanim is used, the message that warns about the upgrade
to ntlmv2 got the kernel release version wrong (Blame it on Linus :). Fix it.
Signed-off-by Suresh Jayaraman<[email protected]>
---
fs/cifs/connect.c | 2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
fs/cifs/connect.c +0 -0
index 6d88b82..84c7307 100644
@@ -1976,7 +1976,7 @@ cifs_get_smb_ses(struct TCP_Server_Info *server,
 struct smb_vol *volume_info)
                warned_on_ntlm = true;
cERROR(1, "default security mechanism requested. The default "
"security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
to "
- "ntlmv2 in kernel release 2.6.41");
+ "ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.1"); }
ses->overrideSecFlg = volume_info->secFlg;
Looks good. Though I'm not sure whether we should call it 3.1.0? Regardless...
I thought about this. But, as Linus has already said:
"Now, my alpha-maleness sadly does not actually extend to all the scripts and Makefile rules, so the kernel is fighting back, and is calling itself 3.0.0-rc1. We'll have the usual 6-7 weeks to wrestle it into submission, and get scripts etc cleaned up, and the final release should be just "3.0". The -stable team can use the third number for their versioning."
I think 3.1 should be ok?

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 3 lines
Pity -- would have been sort of nice to always use a 3 field version number since the stable kernels will need that, but...not my call. Either way, patch is fine.
I think 3.0 was being called 3.0.0 officially because some scripts broke without a "major.minor.revision" scheme. At least for the moment, according to Linus' commit message.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=55922c9d1b84b89cb946c777fddccb3247e7df2c

It won't matter for an informational message fortunately and 3.1 > 3.0.1

Signature · 3 lines

Thanks,

Steve