linux-fsdevel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 2007-02-21 00:04:40:
> You will need patch f988443a84528bd30c2f474efa5e2c511959f19b [1]
> or run
> mount -t nfsd nfsd /proc/fs/nfs/nfsd
> before starting mountd.
I applied the patch, and attempted the mount cmd above.
I assume you mistyped the directory path, because
/proc/fs/nfs/nfsd does not exist, so I used /proc/fs/nfsd
Unfortunately it has not made any difference.
> The differences are not significant.
Really? Surely if userspace uses this order
> > struct nfsctl_uidmap u_umap;
> > struct nfsctl_fhparm u_getfh;
> > struct nfsctl_fdparm u_getfd;
> > struct nfsctl_fsparm u_getfs;
but kernelspace expects this
> > struct nfsctl_fdparm u_getfd;
> > struct nfsctl_fsparm u_getfs;
then we have significant differences?
But if you're sure, then what else can be wrong?
My /etc/exports file contains (adding all 'unsafe' options I can find):
/p
(rw,sync,no_root_squash,no_subtree_check,crossmnt,insecure,nohide,insecure_locks,no_acl)
I tried with and without (empty) hosts.allow and hosts.deny files.
I'm running out of ideas :-(
Wouter Batelaan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
