[Samba] Share mounts in SMBv1 mode, but fails weirdly in SMBv2 mode

[Rowland Penny]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:00:34 +0200
Hadrien Grasland via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:

> Le 13/10/2017 à 01:46, Jeremy Allison via samba a écrit :
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 03:58:58PM +0200, Hadrien Grasland via
> > samba wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> We're slowly deprecating SMBv1 support at work, so I'm trying to
> >> mount our Samba network shares using SMBv2.0. This should in
> >> principle be supported by the server, and seems works well enough
> >> for the Windows clients. But it fails for me with some errors which
> >> I do not understand.
> >>
> >> Can you help me figure out what's going on? Here's my system
> >> configuration and a quick summary of what I have so far:
> >>
> >> hadrien at linux-2ak3:~> uname -a
> >> Linux linux-2ak3 4.13.5-1-default #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Oct 5 18:28:26
> >> UTC 2017 (3fd9659) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> >> hadrien at linux-2ak3:~> /sbin/mount.cifs --version
> >> mount.cifs version: 6.5
> >> hadrien at linux-2ak3:~> sudo mount -v -t cifs //nfsserv22/expsi test
> >> -o credentials=<path to credentials file>,vers=2.0
> >> domain=LAL
> >> mount.cifs kernel mount options:
> >> ip=134.158.91.155,unc=\\nfsserv22\expsi,vers=2.0,user=grasland,,domain=LAL,pass=********
> >> mount error(95): Operation not supported Refer to the
> >> mount.cifs(8) manual page (e.g. man mount.cifs)
> >> hadrien at linux-2ak3:~> dmesg | tail [...]
> >> [13424.783242] CIFS VFS: ioctl error in smb2_get_dfs_refer rc=-2
> >> [13424.789504] CIFS VFS: cifs_read_super: get root inode failed
> >>
> >> Replacing "vers=2.0" with "vers=1.0" in the mount command line
> >> makes this work, so I'm quite confident that my general
> >> configuration is correct and the problem is somehow specific to
> >> the SMBv2 protocol. However, I'm a Samba newbie and would welcome
> >> any tips on how to extract more information from this
> >> machine/server in order to figure out why SMBv2 specifically is
> >> failing.
> > Can you get a wireshark trace on port 445 between client and
> > server ? That would help.
> >
> There you go. I attached it to the e-mail, not sure if that's the
> proper way to send (small) files around on this list, if not please
> tell me :)

OK, no it isn't ;-)

This list strips off any attachments, so either put it into the post or
post it somewhere and provide a link to it.

Rowland