cifs: stop trying to use virtual circuits
Currently, we try to ensure that we use vcnum of 0 on the first established session on a connection and then try to use a different vcnum on each session after that. This is a little odd, since there's no real reason to use a different vcnum for each SMB session. I can only assume there was some confusion between SMB sessions and VCs. That's somewhat understandable since they both get created during SESSION_SETUP, but the documentation indicates that they are really orthogonal. The comment on max_vcs in particular looks quite misguided. An SMB session is already uniquely identified by the SMB UID value -- there's no need to again uniquely ID with a VC. Furthermore, a vcnum of 0 is a cue to the server that it should release any resources that were previously held by the client. This sounds like a good thing, until you consider that: a) it totally ignores the fact that other programs on the box (e.g. smbclient) might have connections established to the server. Using a vcnum of 0 causes them to get kicked off. b) it causes problems with NAT. If several clients are connected to the same server via the same NAT'ed address, whenever one connects to the server it kicks off all the others, which then reconnect and kick off the first one...ad nauseum. I don't see any reason to ignore the advice in "Implementing CIFS" which has a comprehensive treatment of virtual circuits. In there, it states "...and contrary to the specs the client should always use a VcNumber of one, never zero." Have the client just use a hardcoded vcnum of 1, and stop abusing the special behavior of vcnum 0. Reported-by: NSauron99@gmx.de <sauron99@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: NJeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: NVolker Lendecke <vl@samba.org> Signed-off-by: NSteve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Showing
想要评论请 注册 或 登录