| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 09:21:29 -0400 From: simo <idra@...ba.org> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>, linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-cifs-client] Re: SMB2 file system - should it be a distinct module On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 10:06 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 05:52:43PM -0500, Steve French wrote: > > Any idea which would be preferred (smb2 support as part of cifs, or as > > a distinct smb2.ko module)? > > Separate module please. If we grow enough common code as some point > we can move it into a smb_common.ko helper library, but given your > above description I doubt that would useful. Separate modules would mean the user have to know which protocol to choose each time. And this make little sense. You really want to auto-negotiate which protocol to use, because you could have at the same time a connection to a Vista/Longhorn (SMB2) machine and one to a Windows 2000 server (plain SMB) in the same domain using the same credentials. To me it make no sense to separate them out, unless one can load the other on demand when needed and be able to pass all relevant data and the network connection to the other. Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer email: idra@...ba.org http://samba.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists