On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 03:43:39PM -0400, Tom Talpey 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?
We're just doing the rpcsec_gss context initiation. Normally that would
be done over an already-established connection--the only reason we don't
is because our implementation is split between the client and the
server, so it's more convenient for us to set up a new connection in
rpc.gssd. But we really shouldn't be doing an entirely new rpcbind
call--somebody else already did that for us and is telling us the
results through the rpc_pipefs info file.
--b.
>
> >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.
>
> Tom.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NFSv4 mailing list
> NFSv4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
--
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
