This bug has been migrated to another issue tracking site. It has been closed here and may no longer be being monitored.

If you would like to get updates for this issue, or to participate in it, you may do so at Red Hat Issue Tracker .
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1425345 - RFE: mount.cifs missing AD site awareness
Summary: RFE: mount.cifs missing AD site awareness
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED MIGRATED
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
Classification: Red Hat
Component: cifs-utils
Version: 8.0
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
low
Target Milestone: rc
: 8.1
Assignee: Ronnie Sahlberg
QA Contact: xiaoli feng
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1681959 1782928
Blocks: 1679810
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-02-21 09:18 UTC by Thorsten Scherf
Modified: 2024-05-20 14:14 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-05-20 14:14:22 UTC
Type: Story
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
jruemker: mirror+

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker   RHEL-37321 0 None Migrated None 2024-05-20 14:14:21 UTC

Description Thorsten Scherf 2017-02-21 09:18:41 UTC 
Description of problem:

A DFS share can host the same data on multiple machines across a whole AD forest. When such a DFS share is accessed by mount.cifs, it seems that AD sites are not taken into account and the share is provided by an AD server from a random site.

For instance:

\\foo.com\share -> \\site1.foo.com\share
                -> \\site2.foo.com\share

Reading through [1] the following should happen (at least this is what MS clients are supposed to do):

When a UNC is accessed, a list of servers hosting this share is returned. The calling client should then resolve those server names and send CLDAP pings to all those servers in weighted random order. The client will then send the mount request to the first server that responds to the ping request.

[1]  https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc717360.aspx

It seems that cifs.upcall (or some other component - not sure) is not sending those CLDAP pings to identity the server the client should talk to.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
cifs-utils-6.2-9.el7.x86_64.rpm

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:
Comment 1 Dave Wysochanski 2018-03-27 12:34:55 UTC 
Ronnie, this is probably a lower priority but do you agree this is a bug or do you need more info?
Comment 9 Dave Wysochanski 2020-09-17 15:02:50 UTC 
I am not sure how important this is or how much this comes up in support cases.

Kenneth or Jake, does this come up in other support cases, maybe in an indirect manner, but maybe not reflected here?  Or does it not come up to your knowledge?

Ronnie, what's the current upstream status on it?
Comment 10 Jacob Shivers 2020-09-17 15:13:33 UTC 
(In reply to Dave Wysochanski from comment #9)
> I am not sure how important this is or how much this comes up in support
> cases.
> 
> Kenneth or Jake, does this come up in other support cases, maybe in an
> indirect manner, but maybe not reflected here?  Or does it not come up to
> your knowledge?

I have only seen this for the one customer, which is attached to this case.
Comment 11 Dave Wysochanski 2020-09-17 15:20:50 UTC 
Unless Ronnie says this is upstream and will backported, here's how I'd like to handle this:
1. Make a kbase explaining this feature does not exist
2. Close WONTFIX until we get hits on the kbase, or new customer cases demand it be prioritized

This RFE feels like one of those low priority "nice to have" RFEs that may never become a priority, and will just consume people's cycles each release without anything ever being done on it.
Comment 17 RHEL Program Management 2024-05-20 14:10:11 UTC 
Issue migration from Bugzilla to Jira is in process at this time. This will be the last message in Jira copied from the Bugzilla bug.
Comment 18 RHEL Program Management 2024-05-20 14:14:22 UTC 
This BZ has been automatically migrated to the issues.redhat.com Red Hat Issue Tracker. All future work related to this report will be managed there.

Due to differences in account names between systems, some fields were not replicated.  Be sure to add yourself to Jira issue's "Watchers" field to continue receiving updates and add others to the "Need Info From" field to continue requesting information.

To find the migrated issue, look in the "Links" section for a direct link to the new issue location. The issue key will have an icon of 2 footprints next to it, and begin with "RHEL-" followed by an integer.  You can also find this issue by visiting https://issues.redhat.com/issues/?jql= and searching the "Bugzilla Bug" field for this BZ's number, e.g. a search like:

"Bugzilla Bug" = 1234567

In the event you have trouble locating or viewing this issue, you can file an issue by sending mail to rh-issues. You can also visit https://access.redhat.com/articles/7032570 for general account information.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.