From: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
To: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: "Aurélien Aptel" <aaptel@suse.com>,
"Shyam Prasad N" <nspmangalore@gmail.com>,
CIFS <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][SMB3] 3 small multichannel client patches
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 10:51:54 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH2r5muNUwHKZ8z37UZW63et-TVdEGifkoKo4N6VvrkMiVRWJA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b54ad9a9-c145-639c-ef3c-c603988e41d4@talpey.com>
added RB tag and added cc:stable to those two as well
On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 10:20 AM Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> wrote:
>
> LGTM
>
> Reviewed-By: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
>
> On 5/8/2021 11:10 AM, Steve French wrote:
> > On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 8:29 AM Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/7/2021 9:13 PM, Steve French wrote:
> >>> 1) we were not setting CAP_MULTICHANNEL on negotiate request
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c b/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c
> >>> index e36c2a867783..a8bf43184773 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2pdu.c
> >>> @@ -841,6 +841,8 @@ SMB2_negotiate(const unsigned int xid, struct cifs_ses *ses)
> >>> req->SecurityMode = 0;
> >>>
> >>> req->Capabilities = cpu_to_le32(server->vals->req_capabilities);
> >>> + if (ses->chan_max > 1)
> >>> + req->Capabilities |= cpu_to_le32(SMB2_GLOBAL_CAP_MULTI_CHANNEL);
> >>>
> >>> /* ClientGUID must be zero for SMB2.02 dialect */
> >>> if (server->vals->protocol_id == SMB20_PROT_ID)
> >>> @@ -1032,6 +1034,9 @@ int smb3_validate_negotiate(const unsigned int xid, struct cifs_tcon *tcon)
> >>>
> >>> pneg_inbuf->Capabilities =
> >>> cpu_to_le32(server->vals->req_capabilities);
> >>> + if (tcon->ses->chan_max > 1)
> >>> + pneg_inbuf->Capabilities |= cpu_to_le32(SMB2_GLOBAL_CAP_MULTI_CHANNEL);
> >>> +
> >>
> >> This doesn't look quite right, and it can lead to failed negotiate by
> >> setting CAP_MULTI_CHANNEL when the server didn't actually send the bit.
> >> Have you tested this with servers that don't do multichannel?
> >
> > Yes. Validate negotiate ioctl request is supposed to validate what
> > the client sent not what the server responded, so according to
> > MS-SMB2, I must send in the ioctl what I sent before on negprot
> > request
> >
> > Section 3.2.5.5 says for validate negotiate "Capabilities is set to
> > Connection.ClientCapabilities." where
> > "Connection.ClientCapabilities: The capabilities sent by the client in
> > the SMB2 NEGOTIATE Request" (not what the server responded with,
> > what the ClientCapabilities were sent)
> >
> > I tested it with two cases that don't support multichannel: Samba, and
> > also an azure server target where multichannel was disabled.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> 2) we were ignoring whether the server set CAP_NEGOTIATE in the response
> >>
> >> Is this "CAP_NEGOTIATE" a typo? I think you mean CAP_MULTI_CHANNEL.
> >
> > Yes - typo
> >
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/cifs/sess.c b/fs/cifs/sess.c
> >>> index 63d517b9f2ff..a391ca3166f3 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/cifs/sess.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/cifs/sess.c
> >>> @@ -97,6 +97,12 @@ int cifs_try_adding_channels(struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb, struct cifs_ses *ses)
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> + if ((ses->server->capabilities & SMB2_GLOBAL_CAP_MULTI_CHANNEL) == false) {
> >>
> >> This compares a bit to a boolean. "false" should be "0"?
> >
> > I changed it to the more common style if (!(ses->...capabilities & SMB@....))
> >>
> >>> + cifs_dbg(VFS, "server does not support CAP_MULTI_CHANNEL, multichannel disabled\n");
> >>
> >> The wording could be clearer. Technically speaking, the server does not
> >> support _multichannel_, which it indicated by not setting CAP_MULTI_CHANNEL.
> >> Also, wouldn't it be more useful to add the servername to this message?
> >> "server %s does not support multichannel, using single channel"
> >> or similar.
> >
> > Good idea
> >
> >>> 3) we were silently ignoring multichannel when "max_channels" was > 1
> >>> but the user forgot to include "multichannel" in mount line.
> >>
> >> > diff --git a/fs/cifs/fs_context.c b/fs/cifs/fs_context.c
> >> > index 3bcf881c3ae9..8f7af6fcdc76 100644
> >> > --- a/fs/cifs/fs_context.c
> >> > +++ b/fs/cifs/fs_context.c
> >> > @@ -1021,6 +1021,9 @@ static int smb3_fs_context_parse_param(struct
> >> fs_context *fc,
> >> > goto cifs_parse_mount_err;
> >> > }
> >> > ctx->max_channels = result.uint_32;
> >> > + /* If more than one channel requested ... they want multichan */
> >> > + if ((ctx->multichannel == false) && (result.uint_32 > 1))
> >> > + ctx->multichannel = true;
> >>
> >> Wouldn't this be clearer and simpler as just "if (result.uint32 > 1)" ?
> >
> > made that change
> >
> > Updated two of the patches as described above - attached.
> >
--
Thanks,
Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-08 15:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-08 1:13 [PATCH][SMB3] 3 small multichannel client patches Steve French
2021-05-08 12:30 ` Shyam Prasad N
2021-05-08 13:29 ` Tom Talpey
2021-05-08 15:10 ` Steve French
2021-05-08 15:20 ` Tom Talpey
2021-05-08 15:51 ` Steve French [this message]
2021-05-11 15:53 ` Aurélien Aptel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAH2r5muNUwHKZ8z37UZW63et-TVdEGifkoKo4N6VvrkMiVRWJA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=smfrench@gmail.com \
--cc=aaptel@suse.com \
--cc=linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nspmangalore@gmail.com \
--cc=tom@talpey.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).