RE: cifsd: introduce <SMB2n3> kernel server

From: "Namjae Jeon" <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
To: "'L. A. Walsh'" <linux-cifs@tlinx.org>
Cc: "'Dan Carpenter'" <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
	linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, "'Aurélien Aptel'" <aaptel@suse.com>
Subject: RE: cifsd: introduce <SMB2n3> kernel server
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 08:32:19 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <003401d72b3d$15f42440$41dc6cc0$@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <606CE6F3.3010701@tlinx.org>

> 
> On 2021/04/06 03:14, Aurélien Aptel wrote:
> > "L. A. Walsh" <linux-cifs@tlinx.org> writes:
> >
> >> On 2021/03/18 06:12, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >>
> >>> [ cifsd: introduce SMB3 kernel server"
> >>>
> >> Is it to be Linux policy that it will give in-kernel support for only
> >> for smb3, or is it planned to move the rest of the proto into the
> >> kernel as well?  It sorta seems like earlier parts of the protocol,
> >> still dominant on home networks, though it seems linux not supporting
> >> all of linux's smb devices, from smb2.1 and before.
> >>
> >
> > smb1 (aka cifs) is unsecure, out of support and being actively
> > deprecated for over 10 years. Microsoft is uninstalling the smb1
> > server on Windows updates. That's how hard they want to kill it. Samba
> > is planning to drop smb1 too eventually.
> >
> Dropping Smb1 support for linux-serving would seem to be a reasonable step, since I would be hard-
> pressed to find a client that still only talked Smb1 (clients from XP-era).
> 
> I am more concerned about the more secure smb2 & smb2.1 dialects.
> I have heard there is a security difference even between 2 & 2.1, though, I don't often see a breakout
> between 2.0(only)+2.1, with both seeming to be lumped in under Smb2.
> 
> So lets say dropping smb1 isn't an issue...
> >
> >
> >> Isn't the base of an smb3 server the same functions of an smb2.x
> >> server with the new smb3 extensions?
> >>
> >
> > AFAICT Namjae's ksmbd support smb2 and above.
> >
> ---
>     Then would it be a problem if it is called something like "smb2n3" so it can be readily understood
> to support both?
> 
>     It's just a small comfort issue, since 'smb3' really doesn't seem to be very convincing about its
> smb2-support.
You probably didn't check the cover letter of ksmbd patch series. Supported dialects was specified in it.
See:
  https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-cifs/msg21154.html
Well, It seems unnecessary to rename subject that is more difficult to understand because it is specified
in the document and cover letter.

Thanks!
> 
> > Cheers,
> >
> Likewise!
>