From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerlando Falauto Subject: Re: mount.cifs on Win2k8 DFS servers Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:18:20 +0200 Message-ID: <4E9D445C.1020805@keymile.com> References: <4E9C1876.5090205@keymile.com><20111017123635.GA5978@cobija.connexer.com><4E9C43F6.9050702@keymile.com> <20111017171152.GA7102@cobija.connexer.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, samba-technical-w/Ol4Ecudpl8XjKLYN78aQ@public.gmane.org, jlayton-vpEMnDpepFuMZCB2o+C8xQ@public.gmane.org To: sean finney Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20111017171152.GA7102-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 10/17/2011 07:11 PM, sean finney wrote: > I don't think smbclient's behavior is correct either though. It's > a ways back now, but at the time I compared the existing behavior of > smbclient, a couple different windows clients, and cifs.ko, and none > were really consistant with the other. I didn't dive deep enough into this, but my XP client didn't even try connecting, it would just go straight to getting a DFS referral, and that seemed consistent with smbclient. How it made that decision, though, I really don't know. > The reference doc was not entirely specific either IIRC. I would be surprised if it were consistent, let alone specific... :-) > But based on what the module was already doing, it seemed "right enough" > anyway, and with cleanup/refactoring was kept pretty clean in case > someone wants to improve on it in the future :) I see. Won't ask any more questions. Thanks for fixing it! :-) >> 2) Shouldn't this/these patch/es also make it into earlier kernels >> as it is a (not-so-negligible) bugfix? > > I don't think it's super trivial to backport it before 2.6.38, at least > without massaging the patches and cherry picking a few more commits that > cross paths and/or touch the relevant api's. But there've been enough > other bugfixes in the cifs code that for our needs we just upgraded to > a backported 2.6.38 kernel and dumped the pre-3.0 cifs commit history > on top of it (we didn't go all the way to 3.0 for entirely uninteresting > reasons, you should just do that if you have the ability). It merged easily into my 2.6.39.3, and that'll do for now. :-) Gerlando