Re: [PATCH 09/11] cifs: allow mixed secTypes on a socket

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > @@ -978,42 +978,39 @@ cifs_parse_mount_options(char *options, const char
>> > *devname,
>> >                                cERROR(1, "no security value specified");
>> >                                continue;
>> >                        } else if (strnicmp(value, "krb5i", 5) == 0) {
>> > -                               vol->secFlg |= CIFSSEC_MAY_KRB5 |
>> > -                                       CIFSSEC_MUST_SIGN;
>> > +                               vol->sectype = Kerberos;
>> > +                               vol->sign = true;
>> >                        } else if (strnicmp(value, "krb5p", 5) == 0) {
>> > -                               /* vol->secFlg |= CIFSSEC_MUST_SEAL |
>> > -                                       CIFSSEC_MAY_KRB5; */
>> >                                cERROR(1, "Krb5 cifs privacy not
>> > supported");
>> >                                return 1;
>> >                        } else if (strnicmp(value, "krb5", 4) == 0) {
>> > -                               vol->secFlg |= CIFSSEC_MAY_KRB5;
>> > +                               vol->sectype = Kerberos;
>> >
>>
>>
>> Doesn't this change behavior a lot - user can no longer pass in a list of
>> more than one acceptable security options as before (e.g. sec=krb5,
>> sec=ntlmv2i)
>> and can only specify one (but doesn't know ahead of time which the server
>> supports).
>>
>> Also curious if it changed how plaintext was handled (if build with weak
>> password support allowed, which I don't want to encourage) - IIRC we sent
>> this via the older (LANMAN only) style session setup.
>>
>>
>
> It does change that behavior. I didn't realize that was a use case we
> were interested in supporting.
>
> Note that the existing code:
>
> 1) doesn't take the order of sec= options into account to indicate the
> preference (this one will, with the well-established behavior that last
> option specified wins)
>
> 2) doesn't try multiple auth types in turn. It's going to pick one and
> go with it.
>
> If it is important to allow specification of multiple sec= options,
> could you clarify what should the behavior be when someone does this

1) If no sec options specified on mount, it chooses among the available
mechanisms (configurable globally in /proc/fs/cifs - a distro could
populate this pseudofile at boot time from a configuration file, if
they want to
restrict or expand the available mechanisms) and picks from among
those the server supports.

2) If one sec option is specified on mount, that mechanism is used
if the server supports it, otherwise fails

3) If more than one sec option is specified, the behavior should
be similar to temporarily setting the available mechanisms
in /proc/fs/cifs  (cifs.ko picks among those based on
what the server would support).   General idea with specifying
multiple sec options - the user says which mechanisms
are acceptable to it, and as long as the server supports them,
the user lets cifs.ko decide which is "best"

2) If sec options



-- 
Thanks,

Steve