[Bug 224790] New: broken mount of OS/2 shares
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 Summary: broken mount of OS/2 shares Product: openSUSE 10.2 Version: RC 3 Platform: Other OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: Critical Priority: P5 - None Component: Kernel AssignedTo: kernel-maintainers@forge.provo.novell.com ReportedBy: mrmazda@ij.net QAContact: qa@suse.de smbfs has been removed from kernel-default-2.6.18.2-33. Supposedly smbfs vfs has been replaced by cifs, but cifs is unusable with OS/2 shares. So, mounting with smbfs fails in 10.2, and mounting with cifs in 10.2 is nearly equally useless. I can't tell if https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4090 is relevant here, but it does speak to cifs failure issues. https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3815 should be relevant, and it isn't fixed. cifs is unlikely to be fixed any time soon, so smbfs needs to be restored to the kernel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 ------- Comment #1 from mrmazda@ij.net 2006-12-01 17:55 MST ------- With the kind assistance of a fellow Linux and OS/2 user, I just compiled 2.6.18.2-33-default with smbfs enabled, and it works just the same as 2.6.13-15.11-default does on 10.0. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 ------- Comment #3 from mrmazda@ij.net 2006-12-15 16:19 MST ------- The kernel.org default 2.6.19 also works with smbfs enabled. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 ------- Comment #4 from jeffm@novell.com 2006-12-16 09:27 MST ------- Created an attachment (id=110000) --> (https://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=110000&action=view) SRPM containing source for smbfs module Hi Felix - The smbfs module is obsolete and is known to be buggy. In general, it's been replaced by the cifs module, but as you've noticed, the cifs module doesn't support some older operating systems such as OS/2 and Win95. Here is a KMP SRPM that you can build to get the smbfs module for your system. You'll need the kernel-source package installed, and you can build it with: rpmbuild --rebuild smbfs-2.6.18-0.src.rpm This module is provided for your convenience and will never be re-included into the official distribution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 ------- Comment #5 from mrmazda@ij.net 2006-12-16 10:16 MST ------- Jeff, What does KMP mean? How is this procedure impacted at kernel update times? Does it have to be done again? If so, is a new SRPM required? I found out recently that the 2.6.19 kernel has the timestamp problems with cifs fixed, but there remain cifs problems with EAs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 jeffm@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Comment #6 from jeffm@novell.com 2006-12-16 11:22 MST ------- KMP means "kernel module package." It's the SUSE way of providing kernel modules with correct dependencies outside of the normal kernel-<flavor> method. If the dependencies are properly preserved, and they should be since we make every effort to preserve them between releases, you shouldn't need to rebuild the SRPM. If by chance the dependencies do change, you'll just need to do the rpmbuild again. You won't need an new SRPM. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 ------- Comment #7 from gassauer@kde.org 2007-01-22 01:46 MST ------- thanks for providing the file bug-224790_smbfs-2.6.18-0.src.rpm rpmbuild --rebuild bug-224790_smbfs-2.6.18-0.src.rpm does the job and works fine. Jeff, I just have problems to accept your explanation in #4. What happens in praxis is, that the buggy smbfs module (which BTW worked fine for many years) was replaced by the cifs module without an equivalent feature (codepage=cp850) making some installations obsolete WITHOUT (!) notice. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 jeffm@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Comment #8 from jeffm@novell.com 2007-02-02 12:43 MST ------- Sorry, but the problem with smbfs is that it is no longer actively maintained. Since the CIFS module obsoleted it, with the exception of handling really old exports, we weren't looking to commit resources to continue maintaining it. I don't have more information on why it being obsoleted wasn't communicated in the release notes, but it should have been. Mea culpa. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 mrmazda@ij.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | ------- Comment #9 from mrmazda@ij.net 2007-02-02 17:35 MST ------- This can be fixed by fixing the broken CIFS. Are you saying there is no intent to fix CIFS? W9X has similar trouble. Mounts ostensibly work, but the timestamps are screwed up when CIFS is used to copy or move files. This bug isn't per se about smbfs. It's about unbreaking network connectivity with legacy operating systems that was not broken in previous versions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 lmb@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kernel- |lmuelle@novell.com |maintainers@forge.provo.nove| |ll.com | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 ------- Comment #11 from biteme@bitbasher.net 2007-02-17 14:59 MST ------- I applied the KMP, but it still didn't work. It appears there's been a new security patch to the samba-client package that REMOVES smbmount completely. This patch was applied on Feb 14th. I noticed now that I don't have smbmount nor mount.smbfs anywhere in my filesystem. After fiddling with Yast (noob here) I was able to rollback the samba-client package to 3.0.23d-6 from the patched version 3.0.23d-19.2 and I can get smbfs to work again. I'm no Yast guru, but I can't seem to get Yast to "forget about that patch" nor can I get the samba-client package to be "sticky" with the PROTECTED symbol. When I accept the changes, the protected symbols goes away. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 ------- Comment #12 from jrobiso2@ford.com 2007-02-20 13:15 MST ------- I am going to try and cp the smbmount program over to /usr/local/bin. The patch applied on Feb 14th was very poorly thought out, IMHO, considering how many people have complained about how badly cifs is at replacing it. Considering that for me, both Konqueror and Nautilus crash/lock when attempting to access a cifs mounted directory, I'm going to stick with smbfs for the forseeable future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790 ------- Comment #13 from biteme@bitbasher.net 2007-02-23 15:15 MST ------- I noticed that the .spec file for this rpm states: Summary: Kernel module for ACPI device activation on some Acer Notebooks I've installed this smbfs bugfix, and it's working fine. I just assume that the summary description is a copy/paste typo - I don't think I install an Acer thingamajig. :P Also, for clarification, am I assuming correctly that I can run the rebuild step against a newer kernel (say kernel-source-2.6.18.5-36.1.src.rpm) and the resulting KMP rpm will install cleanly with the newer kernel build? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
User jeffm@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790#c15
Jeff Mahoney
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
User mrmazda@ij.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790#c16
Felix Miata
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
User lmuelle@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790#c17
Lars Müller
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
Greg Kroah-Hartman
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
Lars Marowsky-Bree
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
User mrmazda@ij.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790#c19
--- Comment #19 from Felix Miata
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
User sjayaraman@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790#c20
Suresh Jayaraman
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
User mrmazda@ij.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790#c21
--- Comment #21 from Felix Miata
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
User sjayaraman@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790#c22
Suresh Jayaraman
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
User mrmazda@ij.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790#c23
--- Comment #23 from Felix Miata
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
User sjayaraman@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790#c24
--- Comment #24 from Suresh Jayaraman
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
User mrmazda@ij.net added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790#c25
Felix Miata
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790
User sjayaraman@novell.com added comment
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=224790#c28
Suresh Jayaraman
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com