2010-07-16 13:55:42     SMBFS limitations while CIFS present?

Document created by Aaronwu Employee on Aug 22, 2013
Version 1Show Document
  • View in full screen mode

2010-07-16 13:55:42     SMBFS limitations while CIFS present?

Rob Maris (GERMANY)

Message: 91357   

 

With release 2009R1.1 I'm encountering a problem with mounts of remote windows drives/directories.

 

When I activate CFIS, as is recommended, I'm getting an error, when mounting a drive, e.g.

 

root: /> smbmount //192.168.1.70/music /mnt -o username=abc,password=xxxxx

ERROR: smbfs filesystem not supported by the kernel

Please refer to the smbmnt(8) manual page

smbmnt failed: 255

 

 

When I select both SMBFS as well as CIFS in kernel:

 

 

 

root: /> smbmount //192.168.1.70/music /mnt -o username=abc,password=xxxxx

smbfs is deprecated and will be removed from the 2.6.27 kernel. Please migrate to cifs

 

... all is well - /mnt shows up the remote directory - , of course besides the migration advice.

 

I notify that the SMB docs page (https://docs.blackfin.uclinux.org/doku.php?id=uclinux-dist:smb) specify the selection of both file systems. But the kernel config text explicitly states that SMB is OBSOLETE. This suggests that CIFS is backward compatible.

QuoteReplyEditDelete

 

 

2010-07-19 00:21:09     Re: SMBFS limitations while CIFS present?

Sonic Zhang (CHINA)

Message: 91417   

 

It looks the smbmount applicaiton doesn't support CIFS in 2009R1.1. I will add a task to update smbmount application for future release.

QuoteReplyEditDelete

 

 

2010-07-19 00:25:44     Re: SMBFS limitations while CIFS present?

Sonic Zhang (CHINA)

Message: 91418   

 

Please use mount in busybox other than the older smbmount application.

QuoteReplyEditDelete

 

 

2010-07-19 03:38:34     Re: SMBFS limitations while CIFS present?

Rob Maris (GERMANY)

Message: 91433   

 

I verified that situation, and indeed mount is the busybox (1.13.4) one. However, SMBMOUNT is not part of busybox, 2 variants exists under "Filesystem Applications".

 

Using mount -tsmbfs:

 

root: /> mount -tsmbfs //192.168.1.70/music /mnt -o username=abc,password=xxxx

mount: mounting //192.168.1.70/music on /mnt failed: No such device

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd imagine this as a logical error, since smbfs not present:

 

root: /> cat /proc/filesystems

nodev sysfs

nodev rootfs

nodev bdev

nodev proc

nodev debugfs

nodev sockfs

nodev pipefs

nodev anon_inodefs

nodev tmpfs

nodev inotifyfs

nodev devpts

ext2

nodev ramfs

vfat

msdos

nodev nfs

nodev cifs

nodev jffs2

nodev rpc_pipefs

 

The pure cifs mount makes trouble, but this is a known bug:

 

root: /> mount -tcifs //192.168.1.70/music /mnt -o username=abc,password=xxxx

Data access misaligned address violation

- Attempted misaligned data memory or data cache access.

Kernel OOPS in progress

 

QuoteReplyEditDelete

 

 

2010-07-19 05:06:41     Re: SMBFS limitations while CIFS present?

Sonic Zhang (CHINA)

Message: 91435   

 

We have never test CIFS on 2009R1.1. The data misaligned address violation may be a bug. Please submit a bug to our bug tracker.

QuoteReplyEditDelete

 

 

2010-07-19 05:21:46     Re: SMBFS limitations while CIFS present?

Rob Maris (GERMANY)

Message: 91438   

 

Well, as I said, CIFS has a known bug regarding this:

 

[#2745] trying to mount cifs filesystem crashes kernel with misaligned access

  blackfin.uclinux.org/gf/tracker/2745

 

 

I only wanted to check out what is going on with mounting remote smbfs while smbfs is not checked in kernel config. The cifs test was done because I'd wanted to check if it "automatically" recognizes smbfs type (I'm not known with the details of compatibility issues between CIFS and SMBFS.

 

If it should point out that SMBFS has still to be checked in kernel config, e.g. to have NetAudio operate properly, then this would require an addition in the docs page(s).

Attachments

    Outcomes