On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:15 +0200 VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN <eric2.valette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/14/2012 06:18 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > 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, > Thanks for clarification. Now I'm afraid netapp will drag their feet to > fix it. Maybe I should require NFS access in the meantime > > BTW: I've seen prototype SMB2 support in git tress pushed in october. > Any plan to submit something upstream? > > Thanks for your support, > > -- eric > Yes, we're working on it. I think we've come to some consensus on a basic design and I believe Pavel is now working to forward-port the previous patches to that design. -- 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
