[linux-cifs-client] SMB support still missing?

[Christopher R. Hertel]

Steve will have a much better handle on this, I'm sure.

Regarding nmblookup...
mount.cifs does not, as far as I know, rely on nmblookup, but it *does* need
to perform an NBT name resolution which is the same job that nmblookup does.

It's odd about the IP addresses you're getting.  What's in your smb.conf.

Chris -)-----

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> Have you tried using smbclient to verify that the share is really available?
> 
> Yes, I did. Given that `mount -t smbfs //cl0/c` works flawlessy, I 
> suppose hostname lookups are working. On the other hand, `mount -t smbfs 
> -o ip=192.168.222.33 //noDNSentryHost` also works, which is why I 
> suspected "everything is right, and cifs is broken".
> 
> However, at second look:
> 
> sk0# nmblookup cl0
> querying cl0 on 192.168.67.255
> querying cl0 on 192.168.223.255
> querying cl0 on 192.168.231.255
> querying cl0 on 192.168.92.255
> name_query failed to find name cl0
> 
> So what is this? I don't have any 223 nor 231:
> 
> sk0# /sbin/ip a
> 1: lo: ...
>     inet 127.0..1/8 scope host lo
> 2: eth0: ...
>     inet 192.168.64.2/22 brd 192.168.67.255 scope global eth0
>     inet 192.168.222.99/24 brd 192.168.222.255 scope global eth0
>     inet 192.168.229.2/24 brd 192.168.229.225 scope global eth0
> 3: eth1: ...
>     inet 192.168.92.1/24 brd 192.168.92.255 scope global eth1
> 
> 
> Looks to me like nmblookup adds +0 for .64.0/22, +1 for .222.0/24 and +2 
> .229.0/24. Argh!! BUG! mount.cifs should not rely on nmblookup anyway.
> 
> 
>> The "Host is down" message suggests a name resolution failure, but I
>> haven't studied the CIFS VFS error messages so that's just a guess.  What do
>> you get when you enter "nmblookup cl0"?
> 
> 
> So with one IP address assigned to eth0 only, I get
> 
> sk0# mount -t cifs //cl0/c /mnt/0
> Password: (blank)
> mount error 2 = No such file or directory
> 
> sk0# mount -t cifs //cl0/c /mnt/0 -o sec=none
> mount error 112 = Host is down
> 
> 
> 
> and since there is a bug report for error 112 etc. etc. etc., I believe 
> cifs is still not W98-ready.
> Maybe Steve French knows more?
> 
> 
>> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> Hello list,
>>>
>>>
>>> as of kernel 2.6.20-rc7, cifs still cannot mount Windows 98 despite the 
>>> source code containing traces that believe it could. (Existence of 
>>> cifssmb.c) If so, what is wrong with mounting?
>>>
>>> sk0# mount -t cifs //cl0/c /mnt/0
>>> Password: (leave blank)
>>>  CIFS VFS: No response for cmd 114 mid 1
>>>  CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code = -112
>>> mount error 112 = Host is down
>>> Refer to the mount.cifs(8) manual page (e.g.man mount.cifs)
>>>
>>> mount -t cifs -o guest //cl0/c /mnt/0
>>> (same)
>>>
>>> mount -t cifs -o sec=none //cl0/c /mnt/0
>>> (same)
>>>
>>> mount -t smbfs //cl0/c /mnt/0
>>> (works, when giving an empty password)
>>>
>>> mount -t smbfs -o guest //cl0/c /mnt/0
>>> (also works)
>>>
>>>
>>> Is 2.6.20-rc7's cifs still not able to mount it?
>>>
>>> cifs-mount and samba, samba-client are 3.0.23d. Kernel is 2.6.20-rc7, 
>>> CIFS and SMBFS are enabled.

-- 
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh at ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh at ubiqx.org