3 ms·

Slight tangent, but since the changelog further down mentions both cifsd and ksmbd: For all I know cifs is supposed to be the older name for the same thing (ie

Slight tangent, but since the changelog further down mentions both cifsd and ksmbd: For all I know cifs is supposed to be the older name for the same thing (ie an older protocol version). But just like in this case, I still frequently stumble across both terms when reading about/dealing with it. So, is there actually still a difference between those two terms?

accrual 5y ago
I thought the same thing when I saw both names mentioned. My understanding is CIFS is an older dialect of SMB that some servers/clients can still fall back on. Here's some key text from an article on the subject [0]: > Most people, when they use either SMB or CIFS, are talking about the same exact thing. The two are interchangeable not only in a discussion but also in application – i.e., a client speaking CIFS can talk to a server speaking SMB and vice versa. Why? Because CIFS is a form of SMB. > 1.) The CIFS implementation of SMB is rarely used these days. Under the covers, most modern storage systems no longer use CIFS, they use SMB 2 or SMB 3. In the Windows world, SMB 2 has been the standard as of Windows Vista (2006) and SMB 3 is part of Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012. > 2.) CIFS has a negative connotation amongst pedants. SMB 2 and SMB 3 are massive upgrades over the CIFS dialect, and storage architects who are near and dear to file sharing protocols don’t appreciate the misnomer. It’s kind of like calling an executive assistant a secretary. [0] https://www.varonis.com/blog/cifs-vs-smb/ https://www.varonis.com/blog/cifs-vs-smb/ [1] https://blog.fosketts.net/2012/02/16/cifs-smb/ https://blog.fosketts.net/2012/02/16/cifs-smb/ (related)
- chasil 5y ago
  Using CIFS (aka SMB1) is "like taking your grandmother to prom: she means well, but she can't really move anymore. Also, it's creepy and gross." https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/storage-at-microsoft/stop-using-smb1/ba-p/425858 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/storage-at-microsoft/...
- jlokier 5y ago
  CIFS may be old, slow and insecure. But as the only SMB version that supports the "Unix Extensions" in practice, it is the only version I found which actually works between a Linux client and Samba serving a unix filesystem that is shared with other things, keeping the basic unix file attributes (symlinks, rwx permissions, etc) intact. I tried SMB 2 and SMB 3, and many combinations of options on the client side and in Samba. Surely something would yield adequate if not perfect unix file attributes. But no combination worked adequately. Only CIFS. In theory, SMB 3.1.1 has unix extensions that are supported by the Linux client module. In practice, I found this didn't work. Perhaps it will work one day. Which is why I have a CIFS mount on my laptop at the moment. It's used every day for work, and I don't know what else I could use to get the same functionality. You may be thinking, "this is what NFS is for". Alas it's not flexible enough. Samba is being used for its id remapping capabilities (and to a lesser extent to constrain permissions), which are sorely lacking in NFS if you don't have NFSv4, which the file server does not support. (Even if it did it would be difficult to set up adequately.) Ironically, Samba is re-exporting an NFS mount in this case, with Samba configured to provide the id-mapping and permissions-constraining that NFS won't do, and CIFS has to be used to maintain the unix file attributes.
creeble 5y ago
In my experience, cifs is the client side, smb[d] is the server side. On Linux, anyway. cifs has been in the kernel (supporting access to SMB shares, including through SMB 3.1), whereas the user-space samba has always been the only way to get SMB sharing (server-side). edit: clarification
tw04 5y ago
There is absolutely a technical difference, but in 2021 it has become a bit like kleenex. SMB/CIFS are used interchangeably by most folks. CIFS was the specific Microsoft implementation of the original SMB protocol. https://www.varonis.com/blog/cifs-vs-smb/ https://www.varonis.com/blog/cifs-vs-smb/

accrual 5y ago

I thought the same thing when I saw both names mentioned. My understanding is CIFS is an older dialect of SMB that some servers/clients can still fall back on. Here's some key text from an article on the subject [0]: > Most people, when they use either SMB or CIFS, are talking about the same exact thing. The two are interchangeable not only in a discussion but also in application – i.e., a client speaking CIFS can talk to a server speaking SMB and vice versa. Why? Because CIFS is a form of SMB. > 1.) The CIFS implementation of SMB is rarely used these days. Under the covers, most modern storage systems no longer use CIFS, they use SMB 2 or SMB 3. In the Windows world, SMB 2 has been the standard as of Windows Vista (2006) and SMB 3 is part of Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012. > 2.) CIFS has a negative connotation amongst pedants. SMB 2 and SMB 3 are massive upgrades over the CIFS dialect, and storage architects who are near and dear to file sharing protocols don’t appreciate the misnomer. It’s kind of like calling an executive assistant a secretary. [0] https://www.varonis.com/blog/cifs-vs-smb/ https://www.varonis.com/blog/cifs-vs-smb/ [1] https://blog.fosketts.net/2012/02/16/cifs-smb/ https://blog.fosketts.net/2012/02/16/cifs-smb/ (related)

chasil 5y ago
Using CIFS (aka SMB1) is "like taking your grandmother to prom: she means well, but she can't really move anymore. Also, it's creepy and gross." https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/storage-at-microsoft/stop-using-smb1/ba-p/425858 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/storage-at-microsoft/...
jlokier 5y ago
CIFS may be old, slow and insecure. But as the only SMB version that supports the "Unix Extensions" in practice, it is the only version I found which actually works between a Linux client and Samba serving a unix filesystem that is shared with other things, keeping the basic unix file attributes (symlinks, rwx permissions, etc) intact. I tried SMB 2 and SMB 3, and many combinations of options on the client side and in Samba. Surely something would yield adequate if not perfect unix file attributes. But no combination worked adequately. Only CIFS. In theory, SMB 3.1.1 has unix extensions that are supported by the Linux client module. In practice, I found this didn't work. Perhaps it will work one day. Which is why I have a CIFS mount on my laptop at the moment. It's used every day for work, and I don't know what else I could use to get the same functionality. You may be thinking, "this is what NFS is for". Alas it's not flexible enough. Samba is being used for its id remapping capabilities (and to a lesser extent to constrain permissions), which are sorely lacking in NFS if you don't have NFSv4, which the file server does not support. (Even if it did it would be difficult to set up adequately.) Ironically, Samba is re-exporting an NFS mount in this case, with Samba configured to provide the id-mapping and permissions-constraining that NFS won't do, and CIFS has to be used to maintain the unix file attributes.

creeble 5y ago

In my experience, cifs is the client side, smb[d] is the server side. On Linux, anyway. cifs has been in the kernel (supporting access to SMB shares, including through SMB 3.1), whereas the user-space samba has always been the only way to get SMB sharing (server-side). edit: clarification

tw04 5y ago

There is absolutely a technical difference, but in 2021 it has become a bit like kleenex. SMB/CIFS are used interchangeably by most folks. CIFS was the specific Microsoft implementation of the original SMB protocol. https://www.varonis.com/blog/cifs-vs-smb/ https://www.varonis.com/blog/cifs-vs-smb/