Re: cifsd: introduce <SMB2n3> kernel server

["L. A. Walsh" <linux-cifs@tlinx.org>]

On 2021/04/06 03:14, Aurélien Aptel wrote:
> "L. A. Walsh" <linux-cifs@tlinx.org> writes:
>   
>> On 2021/03/18 06:12, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>     
>>> [ cifsd: introduce SMB3 kernel server"
>>>       
>> Is it to be Linux policy that it will give in-kernel
>> support for only for smb3, or is it planned to move the rest of the proto
>> into the kernel as well?  It sorta seems like earlier parts of the protocol,
>> still dominant on home networks, though it seems linux not supporting
>> all of linux's smb devices, from smb2.1 and before.
>>     
>
> smb1 (aka cifs) is unsecure, out of support and being actively
> deprecated for over 10 years. Microsoft is uninstalling the smb1 server
> on Windows updates. That's how hard they want to kill it. Samba is
> planning to drop smb1 too eventually.
>   
Dropping Smb1 support for linux-serving would seem to be a reasonable
step, since I would be hard-pressed to find a client that still
only talked Smb1 (clients from XP-era).

I am more concerned about the more secure smb2 & smb2.1 dialects. 
I have heard there is a security difference even between 2 & 2.1,
though, I don't often see a breakout between 2.0(only)+2.1, with both
seeming to be lumped in under Smb2. 

So lets say dropping smb1 isn't an issue...
>
>   
>> Isn't the base of an smb3 server the same functions
>> of an smb2.x server with the new smb3 extensions?
>>     
>
> AFAICT Namjae's ksmbd support smb2 and above.
>   
---
    Then would it be a problem if it is called something like
"smb2n3" so it can be readily understood to support both?

    It's just a small comfort issue, since 'smb3' really doesn't
seem to be very convincing about its smb2-support.

> Cheers,
>   
Likewise!