Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 10:16:17 +0000 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Deprecating smbfs(5) and removing it before FreeBSD 14 Message-ID: <489849ca-a404-fb54-81d1-d62ea18c5832@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <YQXPR0101MB0968BAB98AEFF583CA68534ADD5C9@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> References: <CAPyFy2CJKxMQQKwD3N=MTe-P4KodN77e3YCEh4z0Ssf9sXWEcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6f99f9bc-8831-aefe-4f73-72f50f8f347b@aetern.org> <79402464-f9e6-5f56-645e-cfd49640032e@quip.cz> <YQXPR0101MB0968A28AAE84DF855AF5125CDD8A9@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <7db04ed9-39eb-7163-ce92-9a52c5f7d302@quip.cz> <YQXPR0101MB096856C46CC68E39E1F8EFFCDD4F9@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <54704b99-7b89-76a4-0368-79bee391926d@quip.cz> <YQXPR0101MB09681E68BAF66F8D8160D6C2DD599@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <bf549f03-1947-fafb-c872-e78ea28ce32a@aetern.org> <YQXPR0101MB0968BAB76CAEEB3A945512DCDD599@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAMXt9NYbUn5fkmRory1ggfUMbgqJJyJz8sFqY=oqpThq5Hc_zg@mail.gmail.com> <YQXPR0101MB0968BAB98AEFF583CA68534ADD5C9@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22/01/2022 23:20, Rick Macklem wrote: > Mark Saad <nonesuch@longcount.org> wrote: > [stuff snipped] >> So I am looking at the Apple and Solaris code, provided by rick. I am not >> sure if the illumos code provides SMB2 support. They based the solaris >> code on Apple SMB-217.x which is from OSX 10.4 . Which I am sure >> predates smb2 . >> >> https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/smb/tree/smb-217.19 >> >> If I am following this correctly we need to look at Apple's smb client >> from OSX 10.9 which is where I start to see bits about smb2 >> >> https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/smb/tree/smb-697.95.1/kernel/netsmb >> >> This is also where this stuff starts to look less and less like FreeBSD . >> Let me ask some of the illumos people I know to see if there is >> anything they can point to. > Yes. Please do so. I saw the "old" calls fo things like open and the > new ntcreate version, so I assumed that was the newer SMB. > If it is not, there is no reason to port it. > > The new Apple code is a monster. 10x the lines of C and a lot of > weird stuff that looks Apple specific. > > It might actually be easier to write SMBv2 from the spec than port > the Apple stuff. > --> I'll try and look at whatever Microsoft publishes w.r.t. SMBv2/3. > > Thanks for looking at this, rick The docs are public: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-smb2/5606ad47-5ee0-437a-817e-70c366052962 Note that the spec is 480 pages, it is not a trivial protocol to implement from scratch. David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?489849ca-a404-fb54-81d1-d62ea18c5832>