Re: Moving from smbfs to cifs

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Harti Brandt <hartmut.brandt_at_dlr.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> RW>
> RW>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Antony Mawer wrote:
> RW>
> RW>> > I stumbled across patches available by R. Imura which are a work todays
> RW>> > adding Unicode support to smbfs, and from what I gather are derived from
> RW>> > changes in Darwin (Mac OS X) smbfs:
> RW>> >
> RW>> > http://people.freebsd.org/~imura/kiconv/
> RW>> >
> RW>> >
> RW>> > There are potentially other improvements available from the Darwin SMBFS
> RW>> > implementation, available here:
> RW>> >
> RW>> > http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.5.2/
> RW>> > http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/other/smb-348.1.tar.gz
> RW>>
> RW>> Probably another reference worth looking at:
> RW>>
> RW>> http://opensolaris.org/os/project/smbfs/
> RW>
> RW>Oh, interesting -- I didn't realize that OpenSolaris had picked up our smbfs
> RW>implementation also.  I spent some time about six months ago comparing the
> RW>FreeBSD and FreeBSD-derived Mac OS X implementations of smbfs, and the
> RW>differences were almost all syntactic.  In particular, their mbuf interfaces
> RW>have all been renamed as part of the KPI work; they have also added some
> RW>crypto/kerberos parts that we don't have.  It would be interesting to do a
> RW>similar comparison of with the OpenSolaris version.
>
> The Kerberos support would be a big win... I remember that I had a look at
> the code, but I have not clue with Kerberos programming so I gave up very
> fast :-(
>
> harti
>

I'll look at the darwin code when I get back sometime next week, and
then see what the Solaris code would require.

I just want to get the buggy smbfs out of the kernel so we don't have
something that's a security risk / non-MPSAFE.

-Garrett