Re: SMB 1.0 broken between Kernel versions 6.2 and 6.5

[Matthew Ruffell <matthew.ruffell@canonical.com>]

Hi Steve,

I built your latest patch ontop of 6.8-rc3, but the problem still persists.

Looking at dmesg, I see the debug statement from the second hunk, but not from
the first hunk, so I don't believe that wsize was ever rounded down to
PAGE_SIZE.

[  541.918267] Use of the less secure dialect vers=1.0 is not
recommended unless required for access to very old servers
[  541.920913] CIFS: VFS: Use of the less secure dialect vers=1.0 is
not recommended unless required for access to very old servers
[  541.923533] CIFS: VFS: wsize should be a multiple of 4096 (PAGE_SIZE)
[  541.924755] CIFS: Attempting to mount //192.168.122.172/sambashare

$ sha256sum sambashare/testdata.txt
9e573a0aa795f9cd4de4ac684a1c056dbc7d2ba5494d02e71b6225ff5f0fd866
sambashare/testdata.txt
$ less sambashare/testdata.txt
...
8dc8da96f7e5de0f312a2dbcc3c5c6facbfcc2fc206e29283274582ec93daa2a1496ca8edd49e3c1
6b^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^
...

Would you be able compile and test your patch and see if we enter the logic from
the first hunk?

I'll be happy to test a V2 tomorrow.

Thanks,
Matthew

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 at 03:50, Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I had attached the wrong file - reattaching the correct patch (ie that
> updates the previous version to use PAGE_SIZE instead of 4096)
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 1:12 AM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Updated patch - now use PAGE_SIZE instead of hard coding to 4096.
> >
> > See attached
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 11:32 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Attached updated patch which also adds check to make sure max write
> > > size is at least 4K
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 10:58 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > his netfslib work looks like quite a big refactor. Is there any plans to land this in 6.8? Or will this be 6.9 / later?
> > > >
> > > > I don't object to putting them in 6.8 if there was additional review
> > > > (it is quite large), but I expect there would be pushback, and am
> > > > concerned that David's status update did still show some TODOs for
> > > > that patch series.  I do plan to upload his most recent set to
> > > > cifs-2.6.git for-next later in the week and target would be for
> > > > merging the patch series would be 6.9-rc1 unless major issues were
> > > > found in review or testing
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 9:42 PM Matthew Ruffell
> > > > <matthew.ruffell@canonical.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have bisected the issue, and found the commit that introduces the problem:
> > > > >
> > > > > commit d08089f649a0cfb2099c8551ac47eef0cc23fdf2
> > > > > Author: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
> > > > > Date:   Mon Jan 24 21:13:24 2022 +0000
> > > > > Subject: cifs: Change the I/O paths to use an iterator rather than a page list
> > > > > Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=d08089f649a0cfb2099c8551ac47eef0cc23fdf2
> > > > >
> > > > > $ git describe --contains d08089f649a0cfb2099c8551ac47eef0cc23fdf2
> > > > > v6.3-rc1~136^2~7
> > > > >
> > > > > David, I also tried your cifs-netfs tree available here:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/log/?h=cifs-netfs
> > > > >
> > > > > This tree solves the issue. Specifically:
> > > > >
> > > > > commit 34efb2a814f1882ddb4a518c2e8a54db119fd0d8
> > > > > Author: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
> > > > > Date:   Fri Oct 6 18:29:59 2023 +0100
> > > > > Subject: cifs: Cut over to using netfslib
> > > > > Link: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=cifs-netfs&id=34efb2a814f1882ddb4a518c2e8a54db119fd0d8
> > > > >
> > > > > This netfslib work looks like quite a big refactor. Is there any plans to land this in 6.8? Or will this be 6.9 / later?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have any suggestions on how to fix this with a smaller delta in 6.3 -> 6.8-rc3 that the stable kernels can use?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Matthew
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Steve
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Steve