linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 05/11] cifs: Remove the RFC1002 header from smb

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3649836.1764014194@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 19:56:34 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
    Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.org>,
    Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>,
    Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
    netfs@...ts.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
    linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/11] cifs: Remove the RFC1002 header from smb_hdr

Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com> wrote:

> On 11/24/2025 7:42 AM, David Howells wrote:
> > Remove the RFC1002 header from struct smb_hdr as used for SMB-1.0.  This
> > simplifies the SMB-1.0 code by simplifying a lot of places that have to add
> > or subtract 4 to work around the fact that the RFC1002 header isn't really
> > part of the message and the base for various offsets within the message is
> > from the base of the smb_hdr, not the RFC1002 header.
> 
> This is truly great, RFC1002 is a framing layer and separating it from
> the upper SMB code is long overdue.
> 
> But... isn't this applicable to SMB2/3? The commit log implies it's SMB1
> only (nit there's no such thing as "SMB-1.0"), which is weird given the
> commit applies to many smb2<foo> files.

SMB2/3 doesn't have the RFC1002 headers included in struct smb2_hdr,
presumably because of the compound chaining, so nothing needed doing in that
respect.  This harmonises SMB1 with SMB2/3.

> And, are similar changes envisioned in the ksmbd code?

None required AFAIK as that doesn't support SMB1?

David