[PATCH][CIFS] Do not build smb1ops.c if legacy support is disabled

[Steve French]

I was thinking about staging smb1 removal gradually over about a year and a
half (assuming that Samba has the SMB3.1.1 POSIX Extensions merged in from
jra's tree by then so no excuses functionally to removing smb1)
- marking the CONFIG_CIFS_ALLOW_INSECURE_LEGACY as recommended 'N' starting
in next release 5.20 and move some additional SMB1 code into the #ifdef
- in 5.21 pulling some of those smb1 specific pieces into a new helper
module (perhaps smb1.ko??)
- in 5.20 or 5.21 renaming fs/cifs directory to fs'smbfs_client (or
something similar)
- evaluate whether we can change the default module name to smb3.ko from
cifs.ko (we already have a module alias for cifs.ko of "smb3" and have for
years been able to "mount -t smb3" with cifs.ko)
- in 5.21 note that insecure legacy support is scheduled for removal
(perhaps a year later), and if anyone mounts with "vers=1.0" (or vers=2.0)
print a warning that it is scheduled for removal in a year.

Thoughts?


On Thu, Jun 2, 2022, 11:39 Tom Talpey <tom at talpey.com> wrote:

> LGTM, but I had some additional suggestions that I found when
> researching how to yank the entire SMB1 code into a module.
> Which actually looks quite possible, but for another day.
>
> This patch doesn't actually stop building smb1ops.c and cifssmb.c
> however. Don't you want to deselect them in the kconfig?
>
> Feel free to add my
> Reviewed-by: Tom Talpey <tom at talpey.com>
>
>
> On 6/1/2022 11:45 PM, Steve French wrote:
> > Another minor one to remove some unneeded SMB20 code when legacy is
> disabled
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 9:39 PM Steve French <smfrench at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> We should not be including unused SMB1/CIFS functions when legacy
> >> support is disabled (CONFIG_CIFS_ALLOW_INSECURE_LEGACY turned
> >> off), but especially obvious is not needing to build smb1ops.c
> >> at all when legacy support is disabled. Over time we can move
> >> more SMB1/CIFS and SMB2.0 legacy functions into ifdefs but this
> >> is a good start (and shrinks the module size a few percent).
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> >
> >
>