Re: [Samba] Re: New maintainer needed for the Linux smb filesystem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ian Kent wrote: On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steven French wrote: | | We are close, but not quite ready to disable smbfs. Steve, I have been itching to work on some kernel code. If you need someone just to keep things afloat, I'd been happy to look into it. There would be some start up time of course. If you would be willing to help me navigate the things other than code, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. I wouldn't mind helping out here either. Perhaps a joint effort Jerry? That's fine by me. Steve, I'll touch base with on #samba-technical to work out what to do first. I know we have had a lot of reports on https://bugzilla.samba.org/ that were originally closed as invalid since were weren't supporting the kernel smbfs code at that time. cheers, jerry -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDCzvsIR7qMdg1EfYRAga/AKCTUZpLIL6oUrpg5gOiPOc80e3KjQCeNv0I XKnUztDUIKyR+3uon+ofKB4= =BwsH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: New maintainer needed for the Linux smb filesystem
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ian Kent wrote: On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steven French wrote: | | We are close, but not quite ready to disable smbfs. Steve, I have been itching to work on some kernel code. If you need someone just to keep things afloat, I'd been happy to look into it. There would be some start up time of course. If you would be willing to help me navigate the things other than code, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. I wouldn't mind helping out here either. Perhaps a joint effort Jerry? That's fine by me. Steve, I'll touch base with on #samba-technical to work out what to do first. I know we have had a lot of reports on https://bugzilla.samba.org/ that were originally closed as invalid since were weren't supporting the kernel smbfs code at that time. Just spin me round and stop me when I'm pointing in the right direction! I'll see if I can find anything in the kernel bugzilla. Ian -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: New maintainer needed for the Linux smb filesystem
Steven French wrote: Surprisingly NT4 still has a huge installed base, and cifs vfs did not support it reasonably well until version 1.30 of the cifs vfs (which is less than a year ago). Win9x/WinME has a large installed base as well, but is somewhat less important as a server, and would be fairly easy to support if I added the old dos style time conversion routines. I think it would take less than two weeks to do (add support for Win9x and WinME to cifs, a couple missing transact2 infolevels, and turning on the insecure lanman hash again), but is lower priority than Kerberos support. I think the lack of Win9x/Me support is the biggest showstopper for a wide replacing of smbfs. der tom -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: New maintainer needed for the Linux smb filesystem
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steven French wrote: | | We are close, but not quite ready to disable smbfs. Steve, I have been itching to work on some kernel code. If you need someone just to keep things afloat, I'd been happy to look into it. There would be some start up time of course. If you would be willing to help me navigate the things other than code, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. I wouldn't mind helping out here either. Perhaps a joint effort Jerry? Ian -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Re: New maintainer needed for the Linux smb filesystem
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since Urban Widmark was not active for some time, and I didn't have any success trying to reach him, it seems we need a new maintainer for the smb filesystem in the Linux kernel. Is there anyone who both feels qualified and wants to become the new maintainer? Yes, it's a poor situation. That driver seems to have quite a few problems. I was hoping that by now we could simply deprecate smbfs and tell people to use CIFS, but I'm not sure that CIFS is ready for that yet. Steve, what's your take? Does CIFS offer a 100% superset of smbfs capabilities? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Re: New maintainer needed for the Linux smb filesystem
We are close, but not quite ready to disable smbfs. At the annual cifs plugfest and at connectathon (testing) cifs is doing well, and better on most functional, performance and stability tests at this point in mainline than smbfs but there are a few cases in which smbfs is better that I have not had time yet to address, but do expect to finish within four or five months. I am satisfied with cifs stability in current mainline, but there are a steady stream of new functional requirements that are coming in and a few posix features that require significant compensations (posix - cifs ACLs e.g.). Getting near perfect posix semantics is not easy to Windows is hard (easier to Samba of course) but we are getting closer. The key smbfs features that still need to be addressed: 1) Kerberos authentication: CIFS does not upcall to kerberos/spnego libs for session authentication which is a requirement for some, and a desirable security feature.This should be finished by November. The missing piece, the userspace samba 4 utility, misleading named in this case, ntlm_auth, easily could do the function but I have been putting off putting an upcall into cifs (mostly because I have not seen an implementation much better than the autofs or nfsv4 upcalls, and they seemed awkward to me). If anyone has a favorite upcall mechanism that is better than the autofs's approach, I would like to know. 2) backlevel server support: I need to run tests from cifs client against Win9x and OS/2 to see how feasible adding support for mounting to those as servers would be. smbfs can probably still mount to those. 3) write performance - there are a few cases in which smbfs performance for large writes is better than cifs due to cifs allocating larger buffers which can lead to cifs putting memory pressure on the slab.I have been adding experimental code in cifs to fix this - by adding writepages to increase the write size on the network significantly and to not allocate a large buffer in the write path. The first one is a showstopper for some customers. I don't mind fixing any major smbfs bugs that are found as needed, the code is not hard to follow, but I would rather focus on the three current cifs priorities: a) getting the upcall mechanism right for item 1 (and needed for cifs dfs support) b) improving the write performance and adding an async style dispatching for readpages (perhaps by fixing up James Roper's patch) c) finishing the merge of the cifs DNOTIFY support from the google summer of code project I have a relatively large number of cifs changesets (almost 20) in the cifs development tree that I have been waiting for 2.6.13 before I offer them to mainline to merge. Steve French Senior Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - IBM Austin phone: 512-838-2294 email: sfrench at-sign us dot ibm dot com Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/21/2005 02:46:57 PM: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since Urban Widmark was not active for some time, and I didn't have any success trying to reach him, it seems we need a new maintainer for the smb filesystem in the Linux kernel. Is there anyone who both feels qualified and wants to become the new maintainer? Yes, it's a poor situation. That driver seems to have quite a few problems. I was hoping that by now we could simply deprecate smbfs and tell people to use CIFS, but I'm not sure that CIFS is ready for that yet. Steve, what's your take? Does CIFS offer a 100% superset of smbfs capabilities? Thanks.-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Re: New maintainer needed for the Linux smb filesystem
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 12:46:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since Urban Widmark was not active for some time, and I didn't have any success trying to reach him, it seems we need a new maintainer for the smb filesystem in the Linux kernel. Is there anyone who both feels qualified and wants to become the new maintainer? Yes, it's a poor situation. That driver seems to have quite a few problems. I was hoping that by now we could simply deprecate smbfs and tell people to use CIFS, but I'm not sure that CIFS is ready for that yet. Steve, what's your take? Does CIFS offer a 100% superset of smbfs capabilities? A while ago, we disabled it in Fedora kernels, and told people Use CIFS instead. There were a whole range of Windows variants that it couldn't talk to. Maybe the situation has improved since, but at the time, it was bad enough that we had to switch smbfs back on. Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Re: New maintainer needed for the Linux smb filesystem
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 08:01:57PM -0500, Steven French wrote: ... I don't mind fixing any major smbfs bugs that are found as needed, the code is not hard to follow, but I would rather focus on the three current cifs priorities: ... It sounds as if you would be a great choice as new smbfs maintainer - you know both the protocols involved and the Linux kernel. Noone expects big feature additions to the smbfs code, maintainership consists of: - reviewing patches - handling bugs (the 16 open bugs in the kernel Bugzilla give a rough impression of what problems people face) cifs might be the future, but until it supports a superset of smbfs users require smbfs - and a good smbfs makes their life easier. cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: New maintainer needed for the Linux smb filesystem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steven French wrote: | | We are close, but not quite ready to disable smbfs. Steve, I have been itching to work on some kernel code. If you need someone just to keep things afloat, I'd been happy to look into it. There would be some start up time of course. If you would be willing to help me navigate the things other than code, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. I need a break sometimes from all the Samba server code. cheers, jerry = Alleviating the pain of Windows(tm) --- http://www.samba.org GnuPG Key- http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc I never saved anything for the swim back. Ethan Hawk in Gattaca -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDCUIGIR7qMdg1EfYRAujdAJwPlCyhVJTHvaO0PvT51XiIweFt0ACfdUcO 9gboB3sz8B3ncBGF6rIGNiw= =wD7W -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Re: New maintainer needed for the Linux smb filesystem
A while ago, we disabled it in Fedora kernels, and told people Use CIFS instead. There were a whole range of Windows variants that it couldn't talk to. Maybe the situation has improved since, but at the time, it was bad enough that we had to switch smbfs back on. Dave Not a whole range of Windows servers anymore but Win9x and WinME (as servers). Even discounting OS/2, there are still many server variants older than Windows 2000. The initial target servers for the cifs vfs client were ones like Samba, NAS boxes such as Network Appliance, and Windows 2000 or later servers. Fortunately the most important of the older servers (at least in terms of installed base) NT4 server is now supported by cifs vfs. Surprisingly NT4 still has a huge installed base, and cifs vfs did not support it reasonably well until version 1.30 of the cifs vfs (which is less than a year ago). Win9x/WinME has a large installed base as well, but is somewhat less important as a server, and would be fairly easy to support if I added the old dos style time conversion routines. I think it would take less than two weeks to do (add support for Win9x and WinME to cifs, a couple missing transact2 infolevels, and turning on the insecure lanman hash again), but is lower priority than Kerberos support. Win9x/ME is so insecure as a server though due to the old now insecure lanman password hashes, that it is hard to take too seriously but certainly in the home there are lots of them. Steve French Senior Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - IBM Austin phone: 512-838-2294 email: sfrench at-sign us dot ibm dot com -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
