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 18:23:15 +0200 Message-ID: <4FB13173.1070509@orange.com> References: <4FB0FDDA.5080604@orange.com> <20120514120159.2f6de2fa@corrin.poochiereds.net> <4FB12D71.3040403@orange.com> <20120514121824.273198a9@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: 7bit Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120514121824.273198a9-4QP7MXygkU+dMjc06nkz3ljfA9RmPOcC@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 05/14/2012 06:18 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:06:09 +0200 > VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN 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 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