smbd/source3 or ntvfs/source4 for new VFS module development?

Volker Lendecke Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Fri Jan 29 05:48:57 UTC 2016

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 09:58:42PM +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> I know you would love to get out the pitchforks, but I would be much
> happier if we kept with the current state where it is disabled in
> default production builds, but is still kept building for developers
> and working with the testsuite.  
> For one thing it is still the only part of Samba with the CIFS proxy
> just discussed. 

This is *one* user in years. Sam Liddicot did not contribute
anything back, so the CIFS proxy is orphaned.

If you look at the knownfails for samba4 in the file server
area it becomes clear how broken the ntvfs file server is.
By keeping it around we send the wrong message.

We used to have it as an example of a better file server
architecture. With SMB2 we have that now in source3 too. All
parsing and protocol handling is pretty much asynchronous.
And who wants a perfect architecture for SMB1 these days?

So, Andrew, if you want to keep it, I urge you to start
fixing the knownfails. This would give us confidence that we
are not sitting on Roaming code :-)


SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen, mailto:kontakt at

More information about the samba-technical mailing list