Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN <eric2.valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On 05/14/2012 06:18 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:06:09 +0200
> VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN<eric2.valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>  wrote:
>
>> On 05/14/2012 06:01 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:43:06 +0200
>>> VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN<eric2.valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>   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 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
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> 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,
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