On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 00:13:34 -0800 > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I'm seeing same interesting errors running against a server from a big >> NAS vendor that shall remain unnamed: >> >> p224160.955651] CIFS VFS: Unexpected lookup error -5 >> [224161.298853] CIFS VFS: Unexpected lookup error -5 >> [224161.643559] CIFS VFS: Unexpected lookup error -5 >> [224161.992309] CIFS VFS: Unexpected lookup error -5 >> [224162.333310] CIFS VFS: Unexpected lookup error -5 >> [224162.677982] CIFS VFS: Unexpected lookup error -5 >> >> Unfortunately it seems like a EIO is the catchall for unknown SMB >> errors, so trying to debug this seems a bit hard. Should we maybe look >> into propagating the SMB error codes further up the chain inside the >> cifs driver instead of converting them at a fairly low level? >> > > That makes a lot of sense. We could also get rid of some nasty NT > error->DOS error conversion code that way too. At least in the SMB2/SMB3 case it is more direct onestep conversion which helps. > That said, if that NAS vendor is the one I'm thinking of, then > it's probable that it's just sending malformed responses and not sending > actual error codes at all. > > You may be interested in this samba bug which has some details about > some of these problems: > > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8914 I think generally with some of the NAS vendors we are better off mounting with "vers=2.1" (or "vers=3.0" if more recent kernel) but probably not till at least at 3.11 kernel. With the big move to SMB2.1 (Windows 7 and Mac) and SMB3, there is presumably a lot less testing going on with cifs in some of the NAS boxes. -- Thanks, Steve -- 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
