From nobody Thu Oct 28 22:47:02 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73251181C78F; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 22:47:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp) Received: from www121.sakura.ne.jp (www121.sakura.ne.jp [153.125.133.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HgLKc07nZz3GGr; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 22:47:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp) Received: from kalamity.joker.local (123-48-130-181.area1b.commufa.jp [123.48.130.181]) (authenticated bits=0) by www121.sakura.ne.jp (8.16.1/8.16.1/[SAKURA-WEB]/20201212) with ESMTPA id 19SMl3es004849; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:47:04 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:47:02 +0900 From: Tomoaki AOKI To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, Ed Maste Subject: Re: Deprecating smbfs(5) and removing it before FreeBSD 14 Message-Id: <20211029074702.d69cba39a643f3f912f8ec81@dec.sakura.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <8d25d2f4-24e2-5b19-5c81-2fe12dc937b7@quip.cz> References: <8d25d2f4-24e2-5b19-5c81-2fe12dc937b7@quip.cz> Reply-To: junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp Organization: Junchoon corps X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; amd64-portbld-freebsd13.0) List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HgLKc07nZz3GGr X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 17:37:33 +0200 Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: > On 28/10/2021 16:44, Ed Maste wrote: > > The smbfs(5) filesystem supports only the obsolete SMBv1 protocol, and > > I propose removing it for FreeBSD 14. I know the CHERI folks have been > > using it but they plan to migrate away from it. It was broken for > > months before they fixed it, so I suspect nobody is using it on > > contemporary releases. > > > > I have review D32707 (https://reviews.freebsd.org/D32707) open to add > > this deprecation notice to the man page: > > The smbfs filesystem driver supports only the obsolete SMBv1 protocol. > > smbfs and userspace counterparts smbutil(1) and mount_smbfs(8) are not > > present in FreeBSD 14 and above. Users are advised to evaluate the > > sysutils/fusefs-smbnetfs port instead. > > > > A similar notice would be added to the smbutil and mount_smbfs man > > pages, and manu@ suggested having the userland utilities emit a > > warning when they are used. > > > > I am interested in comments, objections, or reports that anyone is in > > fact using smbfs. > > I am working for one company where smbfs is heavily used to connect > Windows / MacOS / Linux / FreeBSD (12.2) machines and we are really sad > that FreeBSD's mount_smbfs does not support SMBv2 / SMBv3 protocols (so > we are using SMBv1 with all the risk). I tried fusefs alternatives from > the ports tree in the past but it never worked as is needed. From our > point of view smbnetfs cannot replace mount_smbfs. > I cannot found any good examples of how to configure it to mount about > 20 shares from /etc/fstab on boot as user root from different hosts with > different login, passwords and mount options to defined mount points. > Everything seems to be very differently designed to work for non-root > user with configuration in users home, not system wide and mounting in > some strange hierarchy. (and bad performance was cited by many on other > platforms too) I, as an end-user who need to access local NAS, tried it a few yearsago (when it once broken by struct sockbuf issue that I finally sent patch) and had concluded smbnetfs is unusable for me. Additionally, it was quite unstable ATM. Sudden forcible unmount and failing remount. If it worked as expected, I wouldn't have tried digging into and sent Bug 182963. BTW, current in-tree code is broken for me and mandated patch proposed on Bug 90815. There are 3 patches uploaded and I use second one for years. Third one worked, too when I tried, but not continually using. The first one would no longer applicable. > It was discussed in the past in some other FreeBSD mailinglist that it > is not so easy to implement SMBv2 in to mount_smbfs. But is there any > possibility to make it as some sponsored work? What about FreeBSD > Foundation? There were some paid projects in the past. Or some other > bounty program. Is there anybody who have the skill to implement it if > there is good amount of $? +1 for FreeBSD Foundation project. But possibly we need to delete current smbfs code from base and switch to ports (sysutils/*?) if it require some code having incompatible license for base. Anyway, please don't remove it unless usable alternative appears. > If I am "well informed" FreeBSD is the only widely used OS not > supporting SMBv2. (MacOS, Linux, Solaris have it supported) > I will be really glad "if somebody can fix it" in the base. > > (or at least document how to use smbnetfs the way mount_smbfs is used) > > Kind regards > Miroslav Lachman > -- Tomoaki AOKI