On Tue, 2024-01-23 at 10:59 +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 08:35:07AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Jan 2024, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2024-01-20 at 18:33 +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > > Introduce write_ports netlink command. For listener-set, userspace is > > > > > expected to provide a NFS listeners list it wants to enable (all the > > > > > other ports will be closed). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ditto here. This is a change to a declarative interface, which I think > > > > is a better way to handle this, but we should be aware of the change. > > > > > > I agree it is better, and thanks for highlighting the change. > > > > > > > > + /* 2- remove stale listeners */ > > > > > > > > > > > > The old portlist interface was weird, in that it was only additive. You > > > > couldn't use it to close a listening socket (AFAICT). We may be able to > > > > support that now with this interface, but we'll need to test that case > > > > carefully. > > > > > > Do we ever want/need to remove listening sockets? > > > > I think that might be an interesting use case. Disabling RDMA, for > > example, should kill the RDMA listening endpoints but leave > > listening sockets in place. > > > > But for now, our socket listeners are "any". Wondering how net > > namespaces play into this. > > > > > > > Normal practice when making any changes is to stop and restart where > > > "stop" removes all sockets, unexports all filesystems, disables all > > > versions. > > > I don't exactly object to supporting fine-grained changes, but I suspect > > > anything that is not used by normal service start will hardly ever be > > > used in practice, so will not be tested. > > > > Well, there is that. I guess until we have test coverage for NFSD > > administrative interfaces, we should leave well enough alone. > > So to summarize it: > - we will allow to remove enabled versions (as it is in patch v6 2/3) > - we will allow to add new listening sockets but we will not allow to remove > them (the user/admin will need to stop/start the server). > > Agree? If so I will work on it and post v7. > > That sounds about right to me. We could eventually relax the restriction about removing sockets later, but for now it's probably best to prohibit it (like Neil suggests). > > > > > > > > So if it is easiest to support reverting previous configuration (as it > > > probably is for version setting), then do so. But if there is any > > > complexity (as maybe there is with listening sockets), then don't > > > add complexity that won't be used. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > NeilBrown > > > > -- > > Chuck Lever -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
