sin/samba-mirror
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/samba-team/samba.git synced 2025-01-11 05:18:09 +03:00
Code

s4-smb_server No longer follow the security=share smb.conf directive

Browse Source 
By ignoring the value of security= from the smb.conf, we can allow this
to instead set the value of 'server role' in a manner compatible
with the Samba 3.x release stream.

Andrew Bartlett
This commit is contained in:
Andrew Bartlett 2011-11-02 07:43:43 +11:00
parent 862b81791e
commit 56e760f8f1
5 changed files with 2 additions and 24 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

3
source4/smb_server/session.c
View File

@ -140,9 +140,6 @@ struct smbsrv_session *smbsrv_session_new(struct smbsrv_connection *smb_conn,
struct smbsrv_session *sess = NULL;
int i;
/* Ensure no vuid gets registered in share level security. */
if (smb_conn->config.security == SEC_SHARE) return NULL;
sess = talloc_zero(mem_ctx, struct smbsrv_session);
if (!sess) return NULL;
sess->smb_conn = smb_conn;

11
source4/smb_server/smb/negprot.c
View File

@ -125,9 +125,6 @@ static void reply_lanman1(struct smbsrv_request *req, uint16_t choice)
req->smb_conn->negotiate.encrypted_passwords = lpcfg_encrypted_passwords(req->smb_conn->lp_ctx);
if (lpcfg_security(req->smb_conn->lp_ctx) != SEC_SHARE)
secword |= NEGOTIATE_SECURITY_USER_LEVEL;
if (req->smb_conn->negotiate.encrypted_passwords)
secword |= NEGOTIATE_SECURITY_CHALLENGE_RESPONSE;
@ -183,9 +180,6 @@ static void reply_lanman2(struct smbsrv_request *req, uint16_t choice)
req->smb_conn->negotiate.encrypted_passwords = lpcfg_encrypted_passwords(req->smb_conn->lp_ctx);
if (lpcfg_security(req->smb_conn->lp_ctx) != SEC_SHARE)
secword |= NEGOTIATE_SECURITY_USER_LEVEL;
if (req->smb_conn->negotiate.encrypted_passwords)
secword |= NEGOTIATE_SECURITY_CHALLENGE_RESPONSE;
@ -263,7 +257,6 @@ static void reply_nt1(struct smbsrv_request *req, uint16_t choice)
supports it and we can do encrypted passwords */
if (req->smb_conn->negotiate.encrypted_passwords &&
(lpcfg_security(req->smb_conn->lp_ctx) != SEC_SHARE) &&
lpcfg_use_spnego(req->smb_conn->lp_ctx) &&
(req->flags2 & FLAGS2_EXTENDED_SECURITY)) {
negotiate_spnego = true;
@ -301,9 +294,7 @@ static void reply_nt1(struct smbsrv_request *req, uint16_t choice)
capabilities |= CAP_DFS;
}
if (lpcfg_security(req->smb_conn->lp_ctx) != SEC_SHARE) {
secword |= NEGOTIATE_SECURITY_USER_LEVEL;
}
secword |= NEGOTIATE_SECURITY_USER_LEVEL;
if (req->smb_conn->negotiate.encrypted_passwords) {
secword |= NEGOTIATE_SECURITY_CHALLENGE_RESPONSE;

10
source4/smb_server/smb/receive.c
View File

@ -492,14 +492,7 @@ static void switch_message(int type, struct smbsrv_request *req)
hasn't already been initialised (to cope with SMB
chaining) */
/* In share mode security we must ignore the vuid. */
if (smb_conn->config.security == SEC_SHARE) {
if (req->tcon) {
req->session = req->tcon->sec_share.session;
}
} else {
req->session = smbsrv_session_find(req->smb_conn, SVAL(req->in.hdr,HDR_UID), req->request_time);
}
req->session = smbsrv_session_find(req->smb_conn, SVAL(req->in.hdr,HDR_UID), req->request_time);
}
task_id = server_id_str(NULL, &req->smb_conn->connection->server_id);
@ -670,7 +663,6 @@ NTSTATUS smbsrv_init_smb_connection(struct smbsrv_connection *smb_conn, struct l
smb_conn->negotiate.zone_offset = get_time_zone(time(NULL));
smb_conn->config.security = lpcfg_security(lp_ctx);
smb_conn->config.nt_status_support = lpcfg_nt_status_support(lp_ctx);
status = smbsrv_init_sessions(smb_conn, UINT16_MAX);

1
source4/smb_server/smb2/receive.c
View File

@ -692,7 +692,6 @@ NTSTATUS smbsrv_init_smb2_connection(struct smbsrv_connection *smb_conn)
smb_conn->negotiate.zone_offset = get_time_zone(time(NULL));
smb_conn->config.security = SEC_USER;
smb_conn->config.nt_status_support = true;
status = smbsrv_init_sessions(smb_conn, UINT64_MAX);

1
source4/smb_server/smb_server.h
View File

@ -370,7 +370,6 @@ struct smbsrv_connection {
/* configuration parameters */
struct {
enum security_types security;
bool nt_status_support;
} config;