From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC9F26A822
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:37:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D392E2A421
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:37:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 3DE462A416
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:37:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1606D46EA3
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:37:15 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <91a83918-909e-d631-c405-a6ce1c2c1c9e@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:37:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/99.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20211115123756.146659-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20211115123756.146659-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211115123756.146659-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.057 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH storage 2/2] cifs: check connection:
 bubble up NT_STATUS_LOGON_FAILURE
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:37:45 -0000

On 15.11.21 13:37, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> in the same manner as NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED. It can be assumed to be
> a configuration error, so avoid showing the generic "storage <storeid>
> is not online". Reported in the community forum:
> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/storage-is-not-online-cifs.99201/post-428858
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  PVE/Storage/CIFSPlugin.pm | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!