lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-08-02 21:37    [W:2.553 / U:0.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site