Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1
Subsystems (2)
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
Signature · 7 lines
Eric Valette France Telecom Recherche& Developpement Middleware et Plateformes Avancées Architecte Livebox et Set Top Box tél : (+33) 2 99 12 45 71 mél :<mailto:[email protected]>
Quoted 48 lines · On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:43:06 +0200 VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN…
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
Quoted 9 lines
[ 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.
Signature · 1 line
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
Quoted 68 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 48 lines · On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:43:06 +0200 VALETTE Eric…
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=37Quoted 9 lines
[ 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 -5I'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
Quoted 9 lines
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?
Signature · 7 lines
Eric Valette France Telecom Recherche& Developpement Middleware et Plateformes Avancées Architecte Livebox et Set Top Box tél : (+33) 2 99 12 45 71 mél :<mailto:[email protected]>
Quoted 78 lines · On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:06:09 +0200 VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN…
Quoted 68 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 48 lines · On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:43:06 +0200 VALETTE Eric…
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=37Quoted 9 lines
[ 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 -5I'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=8914Quoted 9 lines
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.
Quoted 6 lines
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,
Signature · 1 line
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
Quoted 87 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 78 lines · On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:06:09 +0200 VALETTE Eric…
Quoted 68 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 48 lines · On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:43:06 +0200 VALETTE Eric…
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=37Quoted 9 lines
[ 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 -5I'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=8914Quoted 9 lines
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.
Quoted 6 lines
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?
Quoted 8 lines
No, it's SMB1. The protocol version header is actually "
0xffS M B". For SMB2, it would be "0xfeS M B".The '2' there is from the "Command" field that immediately follows the protocol version. The command is
SMB_COM_TRANSACTION2, which is0x32. It just happens that the ASCII code for '2' is0x32.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
Quoted 99 lines · On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:15 +0200 VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN…
Quoted 87 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 78 lines · On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:06:09 +0200 VALETTE Eric…
Quoted 68 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 48 lines · On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:43:06 +0200 VALETTE Eric…
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=37Quoted 9 lines
[ 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 -5I'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=8914Quoted 9 lines
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.
Quoted 6 lines
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?
Quoted 8 lines
No, it's SMB1. The protocol version header is actually "
0xffS M B". For SMB2, it would be "0xfeS M B".The '2' there is from the "Command" field that immediately follows the protocol version. The command is
SMB_COM_TRANSACTION2, which is0x32. It just happens that the ASCII code for '2' is0x32.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
Quoted 7 lines
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.
Signature · 1 line
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
Quoted 105 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 102 lines · On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:15 +0200 VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN…
Quoted 87 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 78 lines · On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:06:09 +0200 VALETTE Eric…
Quoted 68 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 48 lines · On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:43:06 +0200 VALETTE Eric…
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=37Quoted 9 lines
[ 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 -5I'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=8914Quoted 9 lines
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.
Quoted 6 lines
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?
Quoted 8 lines
No, it's SMB1. The protocol version header is actually "
0xffS M B". For SMB2, it would be "0xfeS M B".The '2' there is from the "Command" field that immediately follows the protocol version. The command is
SMB_COM_TRANSACTION2, which is0x32. It just happens that the ASCII code for '2' is0x32.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?
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 4 lines
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.
Signature · 5 lines
Jeff Layton <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to [email protected] 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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 11 lines · Jeff Layton
BTW: I've seen prototype SMB2 support in git tress pushed in october. Any plan to submit something upstream?
Thanks for your support,
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.
OK. Will wait then. Any chance it might helps with the netapp?
Quoted 1 line
In Netapps defense Ontap 8.1 is an early release which are known to be buggy.
Well its been released around february if google can be trusted and what this says is that netapp don't care about Linux support at all and do not even perform basic test with linux client. I'm rather sure we asked about linux compatibility before moving from 7.xx to 8.01.
-- eric
Quoted 14 lines · On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:20:14 +0200 VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN…
Quoted 11 lines · Jeff Layton
BTW: I've seen prototype SMB2 support in git tress pushed in october. Any plan to submit something upstream?
Thanks for your support,
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.
OK. Will wait then. Any chance it might helps with the netapp?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
In Netapps defense Ontap 8.1 is an early release which are known to be buggy.
Well its been released around february if google can be trusted and what this says is that netapp don't care about Linux support at all and do not even perform basic test with linux client. I'm rather sure we asked about linux compatibility before moving from 7.xx to 8.01.
-- eric
For the record...
The story I've heard in the past (albeit second or third hand) is that Netapp is not interested in interop with non-windows clients. It's possible however that this is not the case and my info is wrong. I'm not a netapp customer, so I don't have a direct line to their support organization.
If that's not the case, then I'd be more than happy to work with Netapp to help them eliminate these bugs. They're a frequent source of pain for users on our mailing lists.
Obviously, their code is closed-source so we can't offer patches, but we can help them analyze traces and point out protocol errors if it would help them track down these problems.
Signature · 1 line
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
Quoted 32 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 13 lines · On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:20:14 +0200 VALETTE Eric…
Quoted 10 lines · Jeff Layton
BTW: I've seen prototype SMB2 support in git tress pushed in october. Any plan to submit something upstream?
Thanks for your support,
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.
OK. Will wait then. Any chance it might helps with the netapp?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
In Netapps defense Ontap 8.1 is an early release which are known to be buggy.
Well its been released around february if google can be trusted and what this says is that netapp don't care about Linux support at all and do not even perform basic test with linux client. I'm rather sure we asked about linux compatibility before moving from 7.xx to 8.01.
-- eric
For the record...
The story I've heard in the past (albeit second or third hand) is that Netapp is not interested in interop with non-windows clients. It's possible however that this is not the case and my info is wrong. I'm not a netapp customer, so I don't have a direct line to their support organization.
Quoted 8 lines
If that's not the case, then I'd be more than happy to work with Netapp to help them eliminate these bugs. They're a frequent source of pain for users on our mailing lists.
Obviously, their code is closed-source so we can't offer patches, but we can help them analyze traces and point out protocol errors if it would help them track down these problems.
Thanks for the offer. Has we (as a large company) do have many netapp filers, some of them working correctly, we may try to put some pressure on them. The current plans are to record wireshark traces and to first submit a formal bug to netapp. Unfortunately, I will probably not be authorized nor capable to make it myself since I'm not in charge of the filer and have no reference on contractual support number.
Then, depending on netapp answer, if I'm still in the loop, I may propose to shorten the loop so that developers on both side have good direct communication channel.
Thanks for your support.
-- eric
Quoted 23 lines · Jeff Layton
Quoted 20 lines · On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:20:14 +0200 VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN…
Quoted 11 lines · Jeff Layton
BTW: I've seen prototype SMB2 support in git tress pushed in october. Any plan to submit something upstream?
Thanks for your support,
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.
OK. Will wait then. Any chance it might helps with the netapp?
Quoted 1 line
In Netapps defense Ontap 8.1 is an early release which are known to be buggy.
Well its been released around february if google can be trusted and what this says is that netapp don't care about Linux support at all and do not even perform basic test with linux client. I'm rather sure we asked about linux compatibility before moving from 7.xx to 8.01.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
-- eric
For the record...
The story I've heard in the past (albeit second or third hand) is that Netapp is not interested in interop with non-windows clients. It's
Yeah, I have heard similar stories too and from what I have heard from the NetApp customers, NetApp seems to strongly suggest to use _only_ NFS with the Linux clients.
Thanks
Suresh