Re: Moving from smbfs to cifs

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 3:59 AM, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>

s/non-/possibly non-/g
-Garrett