linux-kernel - Re: SMB2 file system - should it be a distinct module

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 May 2007 11:30:31 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org
Subject: Re: SMB2 file system - should it be a distinct module


On Apr 30 2007 17:52, Steve French wrote:
>
> Now that we (Samba team) understand enough about it to implement
> prototypes (there is a prototype server in Samba 4, and a userspace
> client library for testing), we need to decide whether the kernel
> implementation of SMB2 client should be a distinct module or just part
> of the cifs.ko module.

Do it like CONFIG_FAT_FS/CONFIG_MSDOS_FS/CONFIG_VFAT_FS...

config SMB_COMMON
    tristate

config CIFS
    select SMB_COMMON

config SMB2
    select SMB_COMMON

> SMB2 (the protocol) is smaller than cifs,

Could not they have named it CIFS2... :p

And, what also puzzles me... almost every filesystem that's not at revision 1
anymore (ext2/3/4, reiser4, smb2) does not have the usually omnipresent "fs"
suffix anymore (cf. reiserfs, smbfs). Maybe it's time to drop all the "fs"
suffixes? :)


Jan
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/