At 03:53 PM 4/7/2009, Jeff Layton wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:43:39 -0400
>Tom Talpey <tmtalpey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> At 01:11 PM 4/7/2009, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> >On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:27:49 -0400
>> >Tom Talpey <tmtalpey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> At 12:02 PM 4/7/2009, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >On Apr 7, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> >> >> + /* Use standard NFS port for NFSv4 */
>> >> >> + if (program == 100003 && version == 4) {
>> >> >> + port = 2049;
>> >> >> + goto set_port;
>> >> >> + }
>> >> >
>> >> >I think this patch set looks pretty reasonable. Here's my one
>> >> >remaining quibble.
>> >> >
>> >> >You can specify "port=" for nfs4 mounts, in which case we want to use
>> >> >that value here, too, I think. It would be simpler overall if the
>> >>
>> >> *Must* use a port= specification. The 2049 definition is only true for
>> >> NFSv4/TCP, as a counterexample the NFSv4/RDMA IANA binding is
>> >> port 20049. So slamming the port to 2049 would break NFSv4/RDMA.
>> >>
>> >
>> >rpc.gssd doesn't seem to be rdma-enabled at this point. It only seems
>> >to handle "tcp" and "udp" in the existing code.
>>
>> Fair enough. But hardwiring 2049 for all transports is going to very
>> problematic. What's the motivation for bypassing the rpcbind query
>> altogether (that "goto set_port" skips over it)? Why not at least
>> try the query first?
>>
>> >Does libtirpc handle RDMA properly? If so, this might not be too hard
>> >to enable, but I'd probably rather see it in a follow on patchset (and
>> >maybe by someone with more of a clue about RDMA than I currently have).
>>
>> No, libtirpc doesn't have any RDMA support. But, there's no need for
>> RDMA support in it - only NFS does RDMA, in practice, and currently
>> that's just in-kernel.
>>
>> My concern is simply that there be a way to specify, or discover a port
>> that isn't 2049 here. If mount.nfs supports it, other nfs-utils should too.
>>
>
>I forget which version is the cutoff, but newer kernels tell gssd which
>port to use. That hardwiring is only for older kernels that don't send
>the port in the upcall.
Ah - well, if "older" is < 2.6.24, then no problem since those kernels don't
support NFS/RDMA. There are some backports to earlier kernels, but they
could address this as part of the backport.
>
>Could we try a short-timeout rpcbind call for those older kernels that
>don't send the port? Sure. Is it worth it? I'm not as sure there.
I wouldn't recommend a short timeout, arbitrary numbers rarely work
the way you might want them to. I guess my opinion is that in the
absence of any information, a standard rpcbind call is best, before
concluding a default 2049 is the only option.
>
>I'd rather see these people just update their kernels so that this
>isn't needed...
Agreed. Would it make sense to log a message when the default 2049
is used? At least then, there's a chance an admin will know it's needed.
Tom.
--
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
