[RFC PATCH 0/3] Rename "cifs" module to "smbfs"

[Enzo Matsumiya]

On 08/02, Jeff Layton wrote:
>On Mon, 2022-08-01 at 16:09 -0300, Enzo Matsumiya wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As part of the ongoing effort to remove the "cifs" nomenclature from the
>> Linux SMB client, I'm proposing the rename of the module to "smbfs".
>>
>> As it's widely known, CIFS is associated to SMB1.0, which, in turn, is
>> associated with the security issues it presented in the past. Using
>> "SMBFS" makes clear what's the protocol in use for outsiders, but also
>> unties it from any particular protocol version. It also fits in the
>> already existing "fs/smbfs_common" and "fs/ksmbd" naming scheme.
>>
>> This short patch series only changes directory names and includes/ifdefs in
>> headers and source code, and updates docs to reflect the rename. Other
>> than that, no source code/functionality is modified (WIP though).
>>
>> Patch 1/3: effectively changes the module name to "smbfs" and create a
>> 	   "cifs" module alias to maintain compatibility (a warning
>> 	   should be added to indicate the complete removal/isolation of
>> 	   CIFS/SMB1.0 code).
>> Patch 2/3: rename the source-code directory to align with the new module
>> 	   name
>> Patch 3/3: update documentation references to "fs/cifs" or "cifs.ko" or
>> 	   "cifs module" to use the new name
>>
>> Enzo Matsumiya (3):
>>   cifs: change module name to "smbfs.ko"
>>   smbfs: rename directory "fs/cifs" -> "fs/smbfs"
>>   smbfs: update doc references
>> ...
>
>Why do this? My inclination is to say NAK here.
>
>This seems like a lot of change for not a lot of benefit. Renaming the
>directory like this pretty much guarantees that backporting patches
>after this change to kernels that existed before it will be very
>difficult.

Hi Jeff, yes that's a big concern that I've discussed internally with my
team as well, since we'll also suffer from those future backports.

But, as stated in the commit message, and from what I gathered from
Steve, it has been an ongoing wish to have the "cifs" name no longer
associated with a module handling SMB2.0 and SMB3.0, as the name brings
back old bad memories for several users.

There really is no functional benefit for this change, and I have no
argument against that.

>Also, bear in mind that there used to be an smbfs in the kernel that
>predated cifs.ko. That was removed ~2010 though, which is long enough
>ago that it shouldn't produce conflicts in currently shipping releases. 

Yes, I was aware of this before sending v1, and it got raised again in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220802135201.4vm36drd5mp57nvv@cyberdelia/

I have no experience on what kind of issues/problems could arise of
that, aside from the git commit history being weird. If you ever seen
any problems with that happening, please do share.

>Jeff Layton <jlayton at kernel.org>

I sent a v2 with a new "fs/smb" directory name, but kept "smbfs" as the
module name.

Sorry I didn't reply to you before that, I got confused as the thread
replies all went to different folders in my mailbox.


Cheers,

Enzo