On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Steve Dickson wrote:
Jeff Layton wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:09:36 -0400
Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jeff Layton wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 11:00:41 -0700
"Muntz, Daniel" <Dan.Muntz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Layton [mailto:jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 4:12 AM
To: Mike Frysinger
Cc: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: should we make --enable-tirpc the default in
current nfs-utils?
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:50:41 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Friday 05 June 2009 13:36:34 Jeff Layton wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:24:39 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 05 June 2009 07:36:48 Jeff Layton wrote:
Doing this now would add wider testing exposure for these
codepaths and help flush out bugs in TIRPC+IPV4
codepaths. OTOH,
it means adding a new library dependency for packagers, or
they'll need to take the conscious step to
--disable-tirpc when they configure.
or have the configure script dump a warning whenever
libtirpc is
not used ...
The problem there is that these sorts of warnings tend to
get lost
in the noise. So then you have the situation where people
aren't
sure whether they built against libtirpc or not. Only running
ldd
against the binaries will tell you.
the configure script knows whether it's going to be
building against libtirpc.
it isnt going to happen randomly during `make`.
AC_MSG_WARNING([
You really should think about switching to libtirpc
])
maybe it's different in Gentoo, but people report configure
warnings
all the time ;)
Well, Gentoo probably has a larger percentage of people
compiling the sources. Other distros generally distribute the
binaries. But to be fair, it's not unreasonable to expect
people who are compiling from sources to know what they're doing.
We could make it so that configure looks for libtirpc and if
it's not available, configures the build against legacy RPC
interfaces. I think this is a bad idea however. While
it should
"just work" either way, there are some small behavioral
differences when TIRPC support is built in. I think it's
probably better to make enabling and disabling TIRPC
a conscious step.
i think this is the correct behavior for unspecified configure
flags
In general, yes. In this case though I think it's reasonable to
force people compiling the package without tirpc
installed to take
the conscious step to either install the right libs and
headers, or
to add --disable-tirpc.
I think doing so will lead to a more deterministic
outcome in this
situation. If that's a problem however, I'm willing to
listen to the
reasoning and reconsider...
i just dont agree with having to re-run configure to "fix"
a condition
that the configure script should already be able to handle.
but i'm
speaking in general terms here, not specific to what you
propose as
that isnt exactly the same thing. i dont feel too strongly
here,
especially since it doesnt affect me in any realistic way.
-mike
Ok, fair enough. I don't feel terribly strongly about this
either and that is the the conventional way that configure
options work (don't fail unless absolutely necessary). I'll
see about coding up a patch that makes --enable-tirpc the
default but falls back to legacy RPC code with a warning if
TIRPC libs/headers aren't present.
Changing the default because the code isn't sufficiently tested
strikes
me as a particularly bad idea. If Red Hat wants more testing,
distribute nfs-utils with TIRPC enabled in Fedora, and _then_
change the
default in nfs-utils after more testing has occurred. Delegating
testing to unsuspecting end-users (especially people who need to
rebuild
in production environments) seems like an ideal way to cause real
problems.
If users have TIRPC installed on their systems, why would we want
to
avoid using it? Pieces of this code (mount.nfs, for instance) are
pretty much complete and working. There's no real reason to build
these
apps against legacy RPC now if we can help it.
And ffs, don't change the existing configure behavior. When nfs-
utils
is supposed to build with TIRPC (e.g., when TIRPC is the
default), the
configure should fail if TIRPC isn't installed. Perhaps the error
message on failure could suggest running configure with --
disable-tirpc.
nfs-utils is already builds with TIRPC. It also builds with
legacy RPC.
So in this discussion the first question is, "Is there some
reason to
not build against TIRPC when it's available on the machine?"
Second question: "Should make configure bail out when TIRPC isn't
available and force the user to specify --disable-tirpc on the
command
line, or should we make the build just fall back to legacy RPC
when the
right TIRPC libs/headers aren't present?"
So far, I'm leaning toward "No" on the first question and to
"automatically fall back" on the second question.
I concur on this approach... but would like to change the flavour
a bit
Meaning.. Lets take out any and all references to TIRPC and replace
them with IPv6 support, since, ultimately, that's what were are
talking
about...
So, if libtirpc exists, there will be IPv6 support. If not, there
will
not be IPv6 support...
Yes, eventually we'll want to make IPv6 support default to "on" when
TIRPC is present. If you look at the code though, there are #ifdef's
for HAVE_LIBTIRPC and IPV6_SUPPORTED. These are currently
controlled by
separate configure options, but you cannot build in IPv6 support
without TIRPC.
In the interest of phasing in this support slowly, Chuck and I are
proposing that we enable TIRPC by default now, and keep IPv6
support a
separate option for the time being. Eventually, we'll want to turn on
IPv6 support automatically when TIRPC is available. I think it makes
sense though to wait until we have some experience with TIRPC support
in nfs-utils before we go all the way with turning on IPv6 support by
default.
Is there *any* IPv6 code working at all? We can always call the
support "experimental" until you guys are done...
Yes, mount.nfs, showmount, and gssd are all working over IPv6.
rpc.statd and rpc.nfsd are coming soon.
I guess I just don't see why there has to be two switches for
this feature...
Because people seem to want to disable IPv6 support completely on
their systems... Because there is a striking lack of infrastructure
for IPv6 support (including GUIs for configurating ip6tables, lack of
IPv6 support in NetworkManager, no IPv6 support in tcp_wrappers,
inability to disable IPv6 support in the kernel without hacking it out
of /etc/modprobe.conf, and so on)... Because TI-RPC is one level of
complexity, and IPv6 adds more complexity...
We can probably remove --enable-ipv6, and just stick with --enable-
tirpc, which implies IPv6 support, if you prefer that. But it's a
strange argument, when we have --enable-mount, --enable-nfsv4, and on
and on.
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
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
