arggh - just made a typo - will fix. Jeremy's note reminded me -
0x20c is the next free one.

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Steve French wrote:
> I fixed the fs/cifs/cifspdu.h in the cifs-2.6.git tree and will merge
> it upstream with the corrected value.
>
> The capability flag also needed to be shifted down by two to account
> for the transport encryption. See below:
>
> commit ee4987ab5cc9d00be38cfeec90174229565211be
> Author: Steve French
> Date: Thu Apr 24 16:31:12 2008 +0000
>
> [CIFS] Fix define for new proxy cap to match documentation
>
> The transport encryption capability and new SetFSInfo level were
> missing, and the
> new proxy capability (which Samba server is implementing) and
> proxy setfsinfo needed
> to be moved down to not collide with Samba's transport encryption
> capability.
>
> CC: Jeremy Allison
> CC: Sam Liddicott
> Signed-off-by: Steve French
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifspdu.h b/fs/cifs/cifspdu.h
> index b18c6d4..3b889bc 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/cifspdu.h
> +++ b/fs/cifs/cifspdu.h
> @@ -1787,7 +1787,8 @@ typedef struct smb_com_transaction2_fnext_rsp_parms {
> #define SMB_QUERY_CIFS_UNIX_INFO 0x200
> #define SMB_QUERY_POSIX_FS_INFO 0x201
> #define SMB_QUERY_POSIX_WHO_AM_I 0x202
> -#define SMB_QUERY_FS_PROXY 0x203 /* WAFS enabled. Returns structure
> +#define SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION 0x203
> +#define SMB_QUERY_FS_PROXY 0x204 /* WAFS enabled. Returns structure
> FILE_SYSTEM__UNIX_INFO to tell
> whether new NTIOCTL available
> (0xACE) for WAN friendly SMB
> @@ -2048,7 +2049,9 @@ typedef struct {
> #define CIFS_UNIX_LARGE_READ_CAP 0x00000040 /* support reads >128K (up
> to 0xFFFF00 */
> #define CIFS_UNIX_LARGE_WRITE_CAP 0x00000080
> -#define CIFS_UNIX_PROXY_CAP 0x00000100 /* Proxy cap:
> 0xACE ioctl and
> +#define CIFS_UNIX_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION_ 0x00000100 /* can do SPNEGO encrypt */
> +#define CIFS_UNIX_TRANPSORT_ENCRYPTION 0x00000200 /* must do SPNEGO encrypt */
> +#define CIFS_UNIX_PROXY_CAP 0x00000400 /* Proxy cap:
> 0xACE ioctl and
> QFS PROXY call */
> #ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_POSIX
> /* Can not set pathnames cap yet until we send new posix create SMB since
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> >
> > * Jeremy Allison wrote, On 24/04/08 17:14:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:59:33PM +0100, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Sam Liddicott wrote, On 21/04/08 09:44:
> >
> >
> > * James Peach wrote, On 20/04/08 18:33:
> >
> >
> >
> > If so, could you please add documentation to
> > , or a page that is
> > linked from there.
> >
> >
> > It seems that 0x003 was already taken:
> >
> > http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/UNIX_Extensions
> >
> > says:
> > SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION 0x203 Call to set up an encryption
> > context.
> >
> >
> > I think it was erroneously in File Info (and Path Info) levels and then
> > just moved.
> >
> > Steve, I guess we need 0x204, or shall I change the docs to squash on
> > SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION?
> >
> > No, SMB_REQUEST_TRANSPORT_ENCRYPTION is used in current 3.2 code
> > as a SETFSINFO sub code. 0x204 is used 0x20C is the next unused
> > SETFILEINFO sub code.
> >
> > I think I want an FSINFO sub-code not a FILEINFO sub-code, so 0x204 is OK?
> >
> > Or am I confused?
> >
> > Sam
> >

>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>




--
Thanks,

Steve