From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN Subject: Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1 Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:06:09 +0200 Message-ID: <4FB12D71.3040403@orange.com> References: <4FB0FDDA.5080604@orange.com> <20120514120159.2f6de2fa@corrin.poochiereds.net> Reply-To: eric2.valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120514120159.2f6de2fa-4QP7MXygkU+dMjc06nkz3ljfA9RmPOcC@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 05/14/2012 06:01 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:43:06 +0200 > VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN wrote: > >> 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 acces= s my >> own content: >> >> Mount options: >> >> domain=3DZZZZ,credentials=3D/xxxx/xxxx/.sambaShareId,uid=3Dyyyyy,gid= =3Dzzz,iocharset=3Dutf8,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=3D= 34 >> [ 315.788493] Bad SMB: : dump of 48 bytes of data at 0xffff88012304= 5c00 >> [ 315.788501] f8000000 424d53ff 00000032 80018800 . . . \xfffffff8 >> \xffffffff S M B 2 . . . . . . . >> [ 315.788508] 00000000 00000000 00000000 19db0040 . . . . . . . . = =2E . >> . . @ . \xffffffdb . >> [ 315.788518] 00220800 c400020a 02000000 00003800 . . " . . . . >> \xffffffc4 . . . . . 8 . . >> [ 315.791476] CIFS VFS: RFC1001 size 248 smaller than SMB for mid=3D= 35 >> [ 315.791481] Bad SMB: : dump of 48 bytes of data at 0xffff88012304= 5dc0 >> [ 315.791489] f8000000 424d53ff 00000032 80018800 . . . \xfffffff8 >> \xffffffff S M B 2 . . . . . . . >> [ 315.791495] 00000000 00000000 00000000 19db0040 . . . . . . . . = =2E . >> . . @ . \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=3D= 36 >> [ 315.794495] Bad SMB: : dump of 48 bytes of data at 0xffff880126a8= fb80 >> [ 315.794503] f8000000 424d53ff 00000032 80018800 . . . \xfffffff8 >> \xffffffff S M B 2 . . . . . . . >> [ 315.794510] 00000000 00000000 00000000 19db0040 . . . . . . . . = =2E . >> . . @ . \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=3D= 37 >> [ 315.797500] Bad SMB: : dump of 48 bytes of data at 0xffff8801115c= 5880 >> [ 315.797507] f8000000 424d53ff 00000032 80018800 . . . \xfffffff8 >> \xffffffff S M B 2 . . . . . . . >> [ 315.797514] 00000000 00000000 00000000 19db0040 . . . . . . . . = =2E . >> . . @ . \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=3D8914 > > In the past, netapp has not shown much interest in interoperating wit= h > 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 e= nd > of the day though, these are server side bugs and the real fix for th= is > problem would have to be done there. > Just too follow my own post: Ontrack 8.1 implements SMB 2.1 and in my=20 traces I see "S M B 2 ". I'm just curious if we do not try to parse=20 SMB2.1 protocol via CIFS and if ontrack has been correctly configured. Anyone capable to test with 8.1 on the list? --=20 Eric Valette =46rance Telecom Recherche& Developpement Middleware et Plateformes Avanc=C3=A9es Architecte Livebox et Set Top Box t=C3=A9l : (+33) 2 99 12 45 71 m=C3=A9l :