Re: Deprecating smbfs(5) and removing it before FreeBSD 14

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 7:04 PM Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote:

> Yuri <yuri@aetern.org> wrote:
> > Rick Macklem wrote:
> > > I have downloaded the final version of the opensolaris
> > > smbfs and it looks much more reasonable to port to
> > > FreeBSD.
> >
> > What do you mean by "final version of the opensolaris smbfs", the one
> > from 2010?  Please note that illumos (actively maintained fork of
> > opensolaris) has a much more up to date one.
> I'm not surprised that illumos will have updates.
> I don't think it will affect the exercise at this time, since the current
> work
> is to figure out what pieces of the opensolaris code needs to be pulled
> into the current smbfs to make the newer version work.
> Solaris uses a very different VFS/VOP locking model, so a direct port
> of the opensolaris code would be more work than I will be attempting.
>
> rick
>
> > I will be starting to work on this (and maybe Mark Saad will be
> > able to help).
> >
> > I have no idea when I'll have code that can be tested by others.
> >
> > rick
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>
> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:27 AM
> > To: Rick Macklem; freebsd-current@freebsd.org; freebsd-stable
> > Cc: Yuri
> > Subject: Re: Deprecating smbfs(5) and removing it before FreeBSD 14
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph.
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to
> IThelp@uoguelph.ca
> >
> >
> > Hello Rick,
> > thank you for the update and your time on smbfs. I hope OpenSolaris
> > version will be portable. (or mayby some older version from Apple?)
> > FreeBSD without possibility to mount smbfs is not an option for some
> > projects.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Miroslav Lachman
> >
> >
> > On 09/01/2022 15:46, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >> Well, I took a look at the Apple code and I'm afraid I
> >> think porting it into FreeBSD is too big a job for me.
> >>
> >> I was hoping the code would have a layer that could
> >> be used as a "block box" for the VOP calls, but that
> >> does not seem to be the case.
> >> There is also a *lot* of code in it.
> >>
> >> I am going to look at the OpenSolaris code, to see if
> >> I think it will be an easier port.
> >>
> >> rick
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>
> >> Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 5:47 PM
> >> To: Rick Macklem; freebsd-current@freebsd.org; freebsd-stable
> >> Cc: Yuri
> >> Subject: Re: Deprecating smbfs(5) and removing it before FreeBSD 14
> >>
> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of
> Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails
> to IThelp@uoguelph.ca
> >>
> >>
> >> On 01/11/2021 16:55, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >>> Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> >>> [good stuff snipped]
> >>>> Apple sources can be found there
> >>>> https://opensource.apple.com/source/smb/ with all the history from
> SMBv1
> >>>> to SMBv3. The files have original copyright header from 2001 Boris
> Popov
> >>>> (same as FreeBSD) but otherwise it is very different code due to
> >>>> different kernel interfaces and so on.
> >>>> With Apple and Illumos sources it is possible to have smbfs in FreeBSD
> >>>> upgraded to v2 or v3 but very skilled programmer is needed for this
> >>>> work. And for the past years there is none interested in this work.
> >>>
> >>> Although I agree that it would be a non-trivial exercise, a lot of the
> Apple
> >>> differences are in the "smoke and mirrors" category.
> >>> Around OSX 10.4, they changed their VFS/VOP to typedefs and accessor
> >>> functions. For example:
> >>>          "struct vnode *vp" became "vnode_t vp"
> >>> and "vp->v_type" became "vnode_type(vp)"
> >>>
> >>> Ten years ago, the actual semantics were very close to what FreeBSD
> used.
> >>> If you look at sys/fs/nfs/nfskpiport.h in older sources (around
> FreeBSD 10),
> >>> you'll see a bunch of macros I used to allow the Apple port to also
> build/run
> >>> on FreeBSD (a couple, such as vnode_t are still left because I've
> never gotten
> >>> around to doing the edit to replace them).
> >>
> >> If I see it right even the 10 years old Apple version of smbfs has
> >> support for SMBv2 so if this old version is closer to FreeBSD kernel /
> >> smbfs it can be a good starting point to merge changes to our smbfs to
> >> have SMBv2 support on FreeBSD.
> >>
> >>> The hard part will be dealing with the actual VFS/VOP semantics
> changes that
> >>> have occurred in the last 10 years.
> >>>
> >>> Did they stick APSLs on the files? (If so, I think it could still be
> ok, since the APSL
> >>> is a lot like the CDDL. However, I'm not sure if the APSL has ever
> been blessed
> >>> by FreeBSD as of yet?)
> >>
> >> The old versions of smbfs has original copyright header and no other
> >> license. Newer version has some added files with different header with
> >> APSL license. For example
> >>
> https://opensource.apple.com/source/smb/smb-759.40.1/kernel/smbfs/smbfs_subr_2.h.auto.html
> >>
> >> If license is a problem then I think it can live with APSL in the ports
> >> tree as a loadable kernel module. Maybe this will be the easier for
> >> development too?
> >>
> >>> Don't assume anything will happen, but I *might* take a look in the
> winter,
> >>> since outstanding NFS changes should be done by the end of 2021.
> >>
> >> I really appreciate your endless work on NFS on FreeBSD. Without your
> >> work the NFS will be lacking behind industry standards similar to what
> >> we see with smbfs.
> >> And if you will have some spare time to take a look on smbfs and maybe
> >> solve the SMBv2 / SMBv3 problem you will be my hero. I am waiting for it
> >> for many years and I know I am not alone who needs working SMB / CIFS on
> >> FreeBSD.
> >>
> >>> It does sound like there is some interest in this and that fuse
> doesn't solve
> >>> the problem (at least for everyone).
> >>
> >> Yes, there is an interest. It was discussed few times in the past in the
> >> mailing lists and web forums.freebsd.org but without anybody willing to
> >> touch the code.
> >> FUSE alternatives have so many problems with performance, stability and
> >> configuration.
> >> https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/getting-smbnetfs-to-work.78413/
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >> Miroslav Lachman
> >>
> >
>
>
>
So I am looking at the Apple and Solaris code, provided by rick. I am not
sure if the illumos code provides SMB2 support. They based the solaris code
on Apple SMB-217.x which is from OSX 10.4 . Which I am sure predates smb2 .

https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/smb/tree/smb-217.19

If I am following this correctly we need to look at Apple's smb client from
OSX 10.9  which is where I start to see bits about smb2

https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/smb/tree/smb-697.95.1/kernel/netsmb


This is also where this stuff starts to look less and less like FreeBSD .
Let me ask some of the illumos people I know to see if there is anything
they can point to.



-- 
mark saad | nonesuch@longcount.org