| Summary: | cifs hangs on Netapp shares | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 | Reporter: | Jack Waterworth <jwaterwo> |
| Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Jeff Layton <jlayton> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Red Hat Kernel QE team <kernel-qe> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 4.8 | CC: | bfields, dhowells, jlayton, rwheeler, steved |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-01-26 12:25:09 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Jack Waterworth
2011-01-19 14:51:02 UTC
Yep, known problem. It's really NetApp's bug (and a rather nasty one too -- wonder if there's anything interesting in that extra junk?). EMC also had a similar bug a few years ago but they fixed theirs... The checks in CIFS are too strict though. There's no real reason for us to drop packets on the floor just because the server tacked some extra stuff on the end. We should just ignore that part. When and if the upstream maintainer takes this patch we can consider putting it into RHEL, but not sure if it's appropriate for RHEL4 at this point since it'll be in maintenance mode soon. It turns out that I was wrong in my initial analysis of the packets coming from the Netapp. The problem there is that the SMB packet has lengths that go beyond the end of the RFC1001 frame. The patch I had proposed upstream is also wrong and I've self-nak'ed it there. It's unlikely we'll be able to easily make CIFS work with this server. One possibility that Steve F. suggested was to possibly try and "fix up" the lengths in the packet when they are wrong like this. We know where the RFC1001 container ends, so we could fudge those lengths so that they stay within it. This would have to be done after checking the signature on the packet if signing is enabled however, which means overhauling how signature checks are actually handled... In any case, this is really too much for RHEL4, particularly when the real problem is server-side. If you want to reopen this request against RHEL6, then that might be reasonable. |