From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: steve Subject: Re: Kerberized mount.cifs with SMB>1? Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:24:23 +0200 Message-ID: <54453737.7040403@steve-ss.com> References: <53F4ABCD.5040909@rug.nl> <1408545832.2071.6.camel@hh16.hh3.site> <53F4D7FC.8020405@rug.nl> <544417CA.3000609@rug.nl> <54441E2A.6020809@steve-ss.com> <54441F79.7040804@rug.nl> <54442233.4090801@steve-ss.com> <54442399.5030100@rug.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jurjen Bokma Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54442399.5030100-39IHFo8E5E0@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 19/10/14 22:48, Jurjen Bokma wrote: > On 10/19/2014 10:42 PM, steve wrote: >> On 19/10/14 22:30, Jurjen Bokma wrote: >> >>> So I would very much like to use SMB3 to get to the Windows file >>> servers. Kerberized SMB1 worked like a charm. Speed/bandwidth is not >>> really the issue here. >>> >> Yeah, of course. Never knew there was any security involved. Worrying. > Did you ever have SMB3 working Kerberized? If I know it's supposed to > work, I'll give up less easily. > Hi We have everything default. We'd no idea that smb3 existed until this thread. Anyway, it doesn't work here either: CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code = -128 I think the Kerberos has worked because that codes means that the ticket has expired, except it hasn't because removing vers=3.0 mounts fine. But we don't know if our Samba4 file servers are capable of it anyway. I think we'd have to change something in smb.conf. Maybe the devs will look if you bugzilla it? Good luck, Steve