mount_smbfs trouble after cvsup

Gavin Atkinson gavin.atkinson at
Sun Mar 5 20:03:01 UTC 2006

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Yar Tikhiy wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:04:54AM +0000, Gavin Atkinson wrote:
>> Is there a reason this change was made?  And is there a reason why
> The change wasn't against NETSMBCRYPTO, it just corrected the way
> kernel modules get their options.
>> NETSMBCRYPTO is not in GENERIC?  To me, it seems that breaking smbfs
>> between releases within 6.x violates POLA... I suspect a large number of
>> people (myself included) have always used smbfs for passworded shares
>> and it's "just worked".
> This issue is under investigation by the Release Engineers and yours
> truly.  I'm sorry my change to the kernel module framework caused
> the confusion, but so the whole issue has got attention at last.
> Of course, it must be fixed before 6.1-R.  In the meanwhile, I'd
> like to hear about any reservations on making NETSMBCRYPTO the
> default case for netsmb/smbfs.  Thanks!

I don't see any problem with making it the default case, since before the 
framework cleanup, it effectively was default.


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list