Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 23 Jun 2017 18:30:23 +0200
From:      Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org>
To:        Matt B <theunusualmatt@gmail.com>
Cc:        Stefan Esser <se@localhost.FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: SMBv1 Deprecation
Message-ID:  <3e73e276-0e8d-ec88-5d25-58fdff2d27a6@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALJ5sF=_9=-UK%2B6NyWg1Wp%2BcZZwu%2BSVDMLUjirjWD9DrHy%2BzEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CALJ5sFkKMGvhgRYzegikDTiTTyV1xtA_WYJW_gLkHFN9Oh0OqA@mail.gmail.com> <YTXPR01MB01893E3AAB21A03677998D2FDDDB0@YTXPR01MB0189.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CALJ5sFnMWGAGS8oyUvzXfq_Z4ZeRzgs==EDZf%2BqO-4O269qdiw@mail.gmail.com> <9b556cbe-f9f3-ab15-6fcd-71397d18c126@freebsd.org> <20170623104654.07e5a3e0@ernst.home> <45b0864b-680c-8fe0-f5a5-353b6373d069@freebsd.org> <YTXPR01MB0189251BCE0A17B8D0C51514DDD80@YTXPR01MB0189.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CALJ5sF=_9=-UK%2B6NyWg1Wp%2BcZZwu%2BSVDMLUjirjWD9DrHy%2BzEQ@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 23.06.17 um 15:42 schrieb Matt B:
> I have used the netsmb fuse module. It doesn't like being mounted via
> fstab. I had to modify the source code to get it to even try to mount
> from fstab, and even then it was clunky. I think the best way forward is
> to get mount_smbfs working with SMBv2 or higher. I'd love to get this
> working properly. I just don't know where to start here. Should I focus
> on getting smbfs updated? Is it even necessary to do that? Is the
> problem with just how mount_smbfs communicates with the share? Any ideas
> would be great.

The smbfs code in the kernel is responsible for all communication with
the SMB server. You need to make that support SMB2 (or SMB3) client
operations.

A specification of the SMB2/3 protocol can be downloaded from Microsoft:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/5/E/95EF66AF-9026-4BB0-A41D-A4F81802D92C/%5BMS-SMB2%5D.pdf

Implementing the client is a lot simpler compared to a server,
since you can rely on the server working according to the spec and
only have to implement the subset of functionality you need to
provide open/close/read/write/delete for the protocol version that
appears most appropriate (and you can ignore all optional features
that are not strictly necessary to get access to the server).

But it'd be quite and undertaking, I assume ...

Regards, STefan



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3e73e276-0e8d-ec88-5d25-58fdff2d27a6>