Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[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
[  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

-- 
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:Eric2.Valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>

Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[Jeff Layton]

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.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>

Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN]

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?

-- 
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:Eric2.Valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>

Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[Jeff Layton]

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,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>

Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN]

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

Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[Jeff Layton]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:15 +0200
VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN <eric2.valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> 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
> 

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.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>

Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[Don Gray]

On May 14, 2012, at 1:15 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:15 +0200
> VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN <eric2.valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Layton <jlayton-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> 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 majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN]

On 05/14/2012 07:15 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> 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?

> 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

Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[Jeff Layton]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:20:14 +0200
VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN <eric2.valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On 05/14/2012 07:15 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> 
> > 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.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>

Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN]

On 05/15/2012 03:09 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:20:14 +0200
> VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN<eric2.valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>  wrote:
>
>> On 05/14/2012 07:15 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>>> 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.
>
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

Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[Suresh Jayaraman]

On 05/15/2012 06:39 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:20:14 +0200
> VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN <eric2.valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 05/14/2012 07:15 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>> 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

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