linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] cifs: Remove the RFC1002 header from smb

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKYAXd8r1j9Z_yV2EHyUJ-yN+Z4U5s6jNqni97SY0U+D8YpMVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:17:22 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.org>, 
	Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>, Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>, Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, 
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, netfs@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] cifs: Remove the RFC1002 header from smb_hdr

On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 10:36 PM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > Why did you only change smb client after changing smb_hdr structure in
> > smb/common?  smb server also uses smb_hdr structure to handle smb1 negotiate
> > request.
>
> Apologies, but I was under the impression from Steve that ksmbd didn't support
> SMB1 and was never going to.  Further, I'm pretty certain I have been building
> the server and it hasn't shown up any errors - and Steve hasn't mentioned any
> either.
ksmbd needs to handle SMB1 requests to support auto-negotiation. This
process is triggered specifically during connections with Windows
clients, So it cannot be tested using cifs.ko. And this patch will
break the connection between ksmbd and Windows.
>
> > Also, Why didn't you cc me on the patch that updates smb/common?
>
> You're not mentioned in the MAINTAINERS record for CIFS.  I did, however, send
> it to the linux-cifs mailing list six times, though.
I cannot afford to review all cifs patches. Since this patch changes
smb/common, I think that the patch prefix should not have been 'cifs'.
That is likely why I missed it. Furthermore, smb/common is explicitly
listed under the ksmbd entry in the MAINTAINERS file. Maybe I should
be added as a reviewer for the cifs entry...
>
> David
>
>