On 24/01/2022 16:13, Rick Macklem wrote:
[...]
So, I think Mark and Yuri are correct and looking at up to date
Illumos sources is the next step.
(As I mentioned, porting the Apple sources is beyond what I am
willing to attempt.)
rick
Hello Rick,
I would like to ask you I there is some progress with porting newer
SMBFS / CIFS version to FreeBSD? Did you find Illumos sources as a
possibility where to start porting?
We have more and more problems with current state of mount_smbfs. I
would be really glad if "somebody" can do the heroic work of
implementing SMBv2 in FreeBSD.
Maybe it's time to start some fundraising for sponsoring this work?
Kind regards
Miroslav Lachman
________________________________________
From: owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org <owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org> on behalf
of David Chisnall <thera...@freebsd.org>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 5:16 AM
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Deprecating smbfs(5) and removing it before FreeBSD 14
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to ith...@uoguelph.ca
On 22/01/2022 23:20, Rick Macklem wrote:
Mark Saad <nones...@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
