On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 12:37:19AM +1200, Paul Collins wrote: > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 11:15:33PM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:13:19AM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> >I just cut the 1.1.3 nfs-utils release. Unfortunately I'm having > >> >issues accessing my kernel.org account so for the moment the > >> >tar ball is only available on SourceForge: > >> > > >> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/nfs > >> >[...] > >> > >> 1.1.3 clients don't work with a 1.0.10 server anymore. > > > > Very weird--it might make sense if upgrading nfs-utils broke the mount > > itself, but here it seems the mount is succeeding and subsequent file > > access (which I'd expect to only involve the in-kernel client code) is > > failing. Maybe there's some difference in the mount options? What does > > /proc/self/mounts say? I assume these are all v2 or v3 mounts? > > I discovered today that I was no longer able to write to the v3 mount on > my 1.1.2 server. I checked /proc/mounts and noticed sec=null on the > mount. Either adding sec=sys to the client's mount options or > downgrading to nfs-common 1.1.2 on the client fixes the problem. That would do it! So it sounds like there's a bug that causes mount.nfs to get the default mount options wrong? --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
