Re: regression in CIFS(?) between 4.17.14 and 4.18.0

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



and to clarify - DFS referral to Windows 2016 works with 3.0 or later,
but reboots with 2.0 or 2.1?
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:42 PM Robin P. Blanchard
<robin.blanchard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Summary of regression between 4.17.14 and 4.18.0
>
> pam_mount is/was red herring
>
> vers=2.0 and vers=2.1 trigger spontaneous reboots **using DFS pathing** to
> - Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise
> - Microsoft Windows Server 2016 Datacenter
>
> mounting directly to one of the underlying DFS member servers does NOT
> trigger spontaneous reboot.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:21 PM Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:14 PM Robin P. Blanchard
> > <robin.blanchard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 2:49 PM Tom Talpey <ttalpey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: linux-cifs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-cifs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
> > > > > Behalf Of Robin P. Blanchard
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 3:34 PM
> > > > > To: Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: regression in CIFS(?) between 4.17.14 and 4.18.0
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok. "Good" news.
> > > > >
> > > > > The issue is specific to vers=2.0.
> > > >
> > > > Your Windows Server 2008R2 target supports SMB2.1, is there some reason you
> > > > are not using the 2.1 dialect? It is *much* preferred to the baselevel 2.0, though of
> > > > course any 3.x is better still.
> > > >
> > > > Tom.
> > >
> > > Sure. This, however, doesn't explain the regression.
> > >
> > > FWIW - just rested: vers=2.1 also triggers spontaneous reboot
> >
> > So barring other differences in the server (unexpected return code
> > that Windows 2008R2
> > returns that Samba or Windows 2012 or Windows 2016 or Mac servers or NetApp
> > wouldn't return) ... best theory is that only the older two dialects
> > SMB2.0 and SMB2.1 broke for your scenario, but only if mounted via pam_mount
> > not if mounted explicitly from bash?
> >
> > Is that correct?
> >
> > If anyone else is able to repro this let us know ASAP, and of course any data
> > on location of oops would be huge help ... perhaps build kernel with different
> > kconfig options for debugging
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Steve



-- 
Thanks,

Steve



[Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux