Re: smbfs 2.1.x - working!! but...

David Burrows (
Sun, 18 Jan 1998 15:48:58 +1000 (EST)

> > Oh and by the way, -f 5644 does not work with OSR2, but -f 3644 and -f
> > 7644 work fine.. I forget what the difference between them is, but that
> > doesn't really matter I just thought you might want to know.. :)
> The -f 5xxx was an attempt to get three timestamps for file attributes
> under Win 95. The -3xxx mode settles for just the modify time in return
> for greater speed.
> When the -f 5xxx mode fails, what are the errors or symptoms?

[root@bucket /mnt]# smbmount //shed/c
Added interface ip= bcast= nmask=
Server time is Sun Jan 18 15:40:26 1998
Timezone is UTC+10.0
smb: \> mount shed -f 5755
[root@bucket /mnt]# SMBFS: Win 95 bug fixes enabled
smb_newconn: state valid, pid=11738

[root@bucket /mnt]# cd shed
[root@bucket shed]# ls -l
ls: .: No such file or directory
[root@bucket shed]# ls
ls: .: No such file or directory
[root@bucket shed]# find
find: cannot open current directory: No such file or directory
[root@bucket shed]#

Not much to go on there I know...

Also, I have encounted a rather serious problem with smbfs. Ok it goes
something like this. If I mount a share using smbfs, and then people
access this share via ftpd, if the share goes down, it leaves the in.ftpd
in the "D" state (uninterruptable sleep).. now after a while the system
clogs up with undeletable tasks, even a simple ls on the expired mount
will lock up, and you cannot delete it even with kill -9.

Yikes!! To me this is a serious problem, and I tried talking to people on
IRC and they're saying stuff like. "Oh just reboot" or "You can't do
anything about that, don't give ftp users access to smbfs or nfs mounts".
I don't care much for either of those solutions, can anyone else comment?