On 2021/04/06 03:14, Aurélien Aptel wrote:
"L. A. Walsh" <linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 2021/03/18 06:12, Dan Carpenter wrote:
[ cifsd: introduce SMB3 kernel server"
Is it to be Linux policy that it will give in-kernel
support for only for smb3, or is it planned to move the rest of the proto
into the kernel as well? It sorta seems like earlier parts of the protocol,
still dominant on home networks, though it seems linux not supporting
all of linux's smb devices, from smb2.1 and before.
smb1 (aka cifs) is unsecure, out of support and being actively
deprecated for over 10 years. Microsoft is uninstalling the smb1 server
on Windows updates. That's how hard they want to kill it. Samba is
planning to drop smb1 too eventually.
Dropping Smb1 support for linux-serving would seem to be a reasonable
step, since I would be hard-pressed to find a client that still
only talked Smb1 (clients from XP-era).
I am more concerned about the more secure smb2 & smb2.1 dialects.
I have heard there is a security difference even between 2 & 2.1,
though, I don't often see a breakout between 2.0(only)+2.1, with both
seeming to be lumped in under Smb2.
So lets say dropping smb1 isn't an issue...
Isn't the base of an smb3 server the same functions
of an smb2.x server with the new smb3 extensions?
AFAICT Namjae's ksmbd support smb2 and above.
---
Then would it be a problem if it is called something like
"smb2n3" so it can be readily understood to support both?
It's just a small comfort issue, since 'smb3' really doesn't
seem to be very convincing about its smb2-support.
Cheers,
Likewise!
