search for: smb2misc

Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "smb2misc".

2019 Feb 14
3
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
Saurabh Nanda <saurabhnanda at gmail.com> writes: > I found something interesting in /proc/fs/cifs/Stats. Notice the > "QueryDirectories > Failed" number. This keeps increasing as along as `ls > -lR` is running. That's interesting indeed. The verbose logs and network trace would tell us more. -- Aurélien Aptel / SUSE Labs Samba Team GPG: 1839 CB5F 9F5B FB9B AA97
2019 Feb 15
0
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
...verbose logs and network trace would tell > us more. > I've enabled verbose/debug logging on the client side. Here are a few operations from the log, and my observations on them: 1) Why is the log saying `SMB2` everywhere? Shouldn't it be saying `SMB3`? 2) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 157 length 156 mismatch mid 11907 3) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/misc.c: Null buffer passed to cifs_small_buf_release 4) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/readdir.c: index not in buffer - could not findnext into it fs/cifs/readdir.c: could not find entry 5) This definit...
2018 Sep 16
2
Can't copy large files to Windows with SMB2/3 on 10G network
...eturned 0xc000009a STATUS_INSUFFICIENT_RESOURCES [Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] cifs_demultiplex_thread: 927 callbacks suppressed [Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] fs/cifs/connect.c: RFC1002 header 0x50 [Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] smb2_check_message: 929 callbacks suppressed [Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: smb2_check_message length: 0x54, smb_buf_length: 0x50 [Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] smb2_calc_size: 929 callbacks suppressed [Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: SMB2 len 85 [Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] smb2_check_message: 3 callbacks suppressed [Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] fs/cifs/smb2misc....
2019 Feb 15
3
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
...`? "SMB3" is mostly marketing, it inherits almost everything from SMB2 hence why it's often handled by SMB2 code. You will see this in Samba, Wireshark, Linux, and even Microsoft specification "MS-SMB2" which actually covers both versions. > 2) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 157 length 156 > mismatch mid 11907 Could be a bug or miscalculated length + non critical warning, I also see this on master kernel. Either way I doubt it's slowing everything down. > 3) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/misc.c: Null buffer passed to > cifs_small_buf_relea...
2020 Sep 25
1
cifsacl not working
...tu/+source/cifs-utils/+bug/1772148 Separately, Enabling debug on the CIFS module, I do see the following (notice Can't map SID messages): ls -al '/path/to/cifsaclmount/test' Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/inode.c: Getting info on \test Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 190 length 192 mismatch mid 50 Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 124 length 128 mismatch mid 51 Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/smb2ops.c: get smb3 acl for path \test Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/smb2ops.c: CIFS VFS: in get_sm...
2020 Sep 25
2
cifsacl not working
On 9/25/20 5:14 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: > Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >> Can you please expand on this, I am confused as to what you are >> suggesting.? If 'getent pass' works properly and shows no >> overlap/confusion, this seems to be related to cifsacl. > It's still hard to say at this point. > > cifs.idmap logs
2019 Feb 16
0
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
> > > 2) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 157 length 156 > > mismatch mid 11907 > > Could be a bug or miscalculated length + non critical warning, I also > see this on master kernel. Either way I doubt it's slowing everything down. > Should I file a bug for this? > ## OPERATION 1 - `ls debug....
2019 Feb 16
2
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
On 16/02/2019 02:43, Saurabh Nanda via samba wrote: >>> 2) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 157 length 156 >>> mismatch mid 11907 >> Could be a bug or miscalculated length + non critical warning, I also >> see this on master kernel. Either way I doubt it's slowing everything down. >> > Should I file a bug for this? > > >> ##...