On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:39 AM David Disseldorp <ddiss@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 09:30:14 -0500, Steve French wrote: > > > We could add versions if that helped make it less confusing for users, > > but the main motivation here is how to deal with the confusion of > > users being told 'do not use cifs' (the dialect, due to 20 year old > > security) and getting confused when we tell them to use commands > > with 'cifs' in them. > > Isn't that confusion already encountered once the user needs to run > "mount -t cifs"? No, some are now recommending to use smb3 for these (as vers=1.0 is disabled when you use smb3 in the mount and modprobe commands) mount -t smb3 ... already works, as does insmod smb3 See below e.g. root@smf-Thinkpad-P51:~/cifs-2.6# modprobe smb3 root@smf-Thinkpad-P51:~/cifs-2.6# mount -t smb3 //127.0.0.1/scratch /mnt -o username=testuser,password=testpass root@smf-Thinkpad-P51:~/cifs-2.6# I do agree that we could fork cifs and smb3 modules but that is a lot more work for less benefit (and may actually be more work to maintain two modules rather than one with some code duplication). Note that ext2/3/4 and nfsv3/nfsv4 had similar issues and used some of the same naming tricks for module names and mount. -- Thanks, Steve
