Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Aug 2022 16:36:20 -0300 | From | Enzo Matsumiya <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Rename "cifs" module to "smbfs" |
| |
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@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
| |