On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:06:09 +0200 VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN <eric2.valette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/14/2012 06:01 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:43:06 +0200 > > VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN<eric2.valette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Middle of next week, a netapp filer was replaced by a new netapp FAS > >> 3270 with 8.1 firmware. While previously I had no problem accessing, all > >> the share, now, my log is full of CIFS errors preventing me to access my > >> own content: > >> > >> Mount options: > >> > >> domain=ZZZZ,credentials=/xxxx/xxxx/.sambaShareId,uid=yyyyy,gid=zzz,iocharset=utf8,noserverino > >> 0 0 > >> > >> Is there any known problem with this netapp firmware? > >> > >> Note that I have other shares on different using different netapp > >> machine with older firmware that work like a charm. > >> > >> -- eric > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________________________________ > >> [ 315.788485] CIFS VFS: RFC1001 size 248 smaller than SMB for mid=34 > >> [ 315.788493] Bad SMB: : dump of 48 bytes of data at 0xffff880123045c00 > >> [ 315.788501] f8000000 424d53ff 00000032 80018800 . . . \xfffffff8 > >> \xffffffff S M B 2 . . . . . . . > >> [ 315.788508] 00000000 00000000 00000000 19db0040 . . . . . . . . . . > >> . . @ . \xffffffdb . > >> [ 315.788518] 00220800 c400020a 02000000 00003800 . . " . . . . > >> \xffffffc4 . . . . . 8 . . > >> [ 315.791476] CIFS VFS: RFC1001 size 248 smaller than SMB for mid=35 > >> [ 315.791481] Bad SMB: : dump of 48 bytes of data at 0xffff880123045dc0 > >> [ 315.791489] f8000000 424d53ff 00000032 80018800 . . . \xfffffff8 > >> \xffffffff S M B 2 . . . . . . . > >> [ 315.791495] 00000000 00000000 00000000 19db0040 . . . . . . . . . . > >> . . @ . \xffffffdb . > >> [ 315.791502] 00230800 c400020a 02000000 00003800 . . # . . . . > >> \xffffffc4 . . . . . 8 . . > >> [ 315.791577] CIFS VFS: Unexpected lookup error -5 > >> [ 315.794489] CIFS VFS: RFC1001 size 248 smaller than SMB for mid=36 > >> [ 315.794495] Bad SMB: : dump of 48 bytes of data at 0xffff880126a8fb80 > >> [ 315.794503] f8000000 424d53ff 00000032 80018800 . . . \xfffffff8 > >> \xffffffff S M B 2 . . . . . . . > >> [ 315.794510] 00000000 00000000 00000000 19db0040 . . . . . . . . . . > >> . . @ . \xffffffdb . > >> [ 315.794516] 00240800 c400020a 02000000 00003800 . . $ . . . . > >> \xffffffc4 . . . . . 8 . . > >> [ 315.794542] CIFS VFS: Unexpected lookup error -5 > >> [ 315.797494] CIFS VFS: RFC1001 size 248 smaller than SMB for mid=37 > >> [ 315.797500] Bad SMB: : dump of 48 bytes of data at 0xffff8801115c5880 > >> [ 315.797507] f8000000 424d53ff 00000032 80018800 . . . \xfffffff8 > >> \xffffffff S M B 2 . . . . . . . > >> [ 315.797514] 00000000 00000000 00000000 19db0040 . . . . . . . . . . > >> . . @ . \xffffffdb . > >> [ 315.797521] 00250800 c400020a 02000000 00003800 . . % . . . . > >> \xffffffc4 . . . . . 8 . . > >> [ 315.797542] CIFS VFS: Unexpected lookup error -5 > >> > > I'm not sure, but just to confirm -- that's almost certainly an OnTap > > bug. Those messages mean that the filer is sending back SMB responses > > that have lengths in them that go beyond the end of the frame. > > > > It's almost certainly a similar problem to that reported here: > > > > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8914 > > > > In the past, netapp has not shown much interest in interoperating with > > clients other than windows. Perhaps though if enough paying customers > > complain they'd be willing to fix it. > > > > I'm also not opposed to sensible workarounds in the client for these > > sorts of bugs, as long as they aren't too invasive or risky. At the end > > of the day though, these are server side bugs and the real fix for this > > problem would have to be done there. > > > Just too follow my own post: Ontrack 8.1 implements SMB 2.1 and in my > traces I see "S M B 2 ". I'm just curious if we do not try to parse > SMB2.1 protocol via CIFS and if ontrack has been correctly configured. > > Anyone capable to test with 8.1 on the list? > No, it's SMB1. The protocol version header is actually "0xff S M B". For SMB2, it would be "0xfe S M B". The '2' there is from the "Command" field that immediately follows the protocol version. The command is SMB_COM_TRANSACTION2, which is 0x32. It just happens that the ASCII code for '2' is 0x32. Cheers, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
