On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Would it be reasonable to split the simple mac_key to session_key
>> > rename part into a separate patch from the ones that actually change
>> > behavior?
>>
>> OK. But I am not sure what we are trying to achieve here churning
>> thes
> >
> > Would it be reasonable to split the simple mac_key to session_key
> > rename part into a separate patch from the ones that actually change
> > behavior?
>
> OK. But I am not sure what we are trying to achieve here churning
> these patches so
> many times for a simple change. Not sure who
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 13:12:40 -0500
> shirishpargaon...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> From: Shirish Pargaonkar
>>
>> To calculate ntlmv2 response we need ti/av pair blob.
>>
>> For sec mech like ntlmssp, the blob is plucked from type 2 response from
>>
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 13:12:40 -0500
shirishpargaon...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Shirish Pargaonkar
>
> To calculate ntlmv2 response we need ti/av pair blob.
>
> For sec mech like ntlmssp, the blob is plucked from type 2 response from
> the server. From this blob, netbios name of the domain is re
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 13:12:19 -0500
shirishpargaon...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Shirish Pargaonkar
>
It would be good to prefix the subject line in these patches with
"cifs:" so that people can quickly see what these patches are intended
to touch.
>
> Attribue Value (AV) pairs or Target Info (T
