On May 14, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 In Netapps defense Ontap 8.1 is an early release which are known to be buggy.-- 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
