Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: > 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? Yes. I have the stuff off Illumos-gate, which I think is pretty up-to-date and I agree that it should be easier than the Apple stuff to port into FreeBSD. I don't think it is "straightforward" as someone involved with Illumos said, due to the big differences in VFS/locking, but...
Having said the above, I have not done much yet. I've been cleaning up NFS stuff, although I am nearly done with that now. I do plan on starting to work on it soon, but have no idea if/when I will have something that might be useful for others. > 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? Well, funding isn't an issue for me (I'm just a retired guy who does this stuff as a hobby). However, if there is someone else who is capable of doing it if they are funded, I have no problem with that. I could either help them, or simply stick with working on NFS and leave SMBv23 to them. Sorry, but I cannot report real progress on this as yet, rick 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 > >
