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