This is a tracking BZ for tracking the update of the CIFS client code to 1.48a. Given that that's how CIFS updates have generally been handled in the past, it's probably best to continue that in RHEL5 as well.
Created attachment 153882 [details] patch -- update RHEL5 CIFS code to 1.48a This patch updates the RHEL5 CIFS code to 1.48a. It should apply cleanly on top of 2.6.18-17.el5. Cursory testing indicates that it works as expected. Still working on more in-depth testing...
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.
Created attachment 154279 [details] patch -- update RHEL5 CIFS code to 1.48aRH This is essentially identical to the other patch, but I folded in the patch for bug #227973, and customized the version string.
Testing done so far: Connectathon test against FC6 samba (both with and without unix extensions), win2k and win2k3. All basic and general tests pass. Special tests fall down about halfway through, but they do that as well on the prior kernel. fsstress tests run against samba -- no problems Also, basic "hello" world type testing on all different hosts. Worked fine.
I also need to clarify, if you mount a samba server with unix extensions enabled, all the connectathon tests pass. If you disable them or run against a windows machine, then the special tests fail early on.
*** Bug 224476 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 227973 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 156476 [details] patch -- delta from upstream tarball This patch is the delta on top of Steve French's backport. It's a few small changes to make this build correctly on RHEL5, and also contains a patch that went upstream after 1.48 came out to force an anonymous mount when sec=none is specified on the command line.
Created attachment 156478 [details] tarball with backport of 1.48 for older kernels This tarball contains the backport of the 1.48 code to earlier kernels that Steve French did. The patch is based on this tarball.
Why is the 'RH'added the version? -#define CIFS_VERSION "1.47" +#define CIFS_VERSION "1.48aRH"
I noticed that Steve F. had forgotten to bump the version number when he rolled this tarball so I figured we should fix that up. Also since this code isn't really the *exact* 1.48a code it would be good to distinguish it somehow.
Well logically its the same... unless I miss something there are no additional bug fixes or features... but I guess its a non-issue as long as continue to stamp 'RH' for now on... (i.e. keeping it consistent)
in 2.6.18-27.el5 You can download this test kernel from http://people.redhat.com/dzickus/el5
(In reply to comment #18) > in 2.6.18-27.el5 > You can download this test kernel from http://people.redhat.com/dzickus/el5 I am a bit confused. Test kernels in there DO NOT contain the patch reported in Bug 224359. Without this (224359) patch, RHEL5.x would be totally useless for those affected (kernel crash). Akemi
(In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > in 2.6.18-27.el5 > > You can download this test kernel from http://people.redhat.com/dzickus/el5 > > I am a bit confused. Test kernels in there DO NOT contain the patch reported in > Bug 224359. Sorry, I spoke too soon. It seems to have the patch I referred to.
need to put this in MODIFIED state for the errata tool. QE note this bz is still active due to documentation issues
Confirmed the CIFS module has been updated to 1.48aRH in 2.6.18-47.el5
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2007-0959.html