On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 01:49 +0100, Wolfgang Walter wrote: > On Monday 09 January 2012, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 14:28 -0800, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > Please read the changelog and documentation: > > > > > > If your server doesn’t support numeric uids/gids, then you will see _no_ > > > change in behaviour. > > Hmm, what does that mean exactly? Does a linux nfs4-server support numeric > uids/gids? If yes, by default or do I need do set an option? The patch requires no changes to a configuration that is already working. That's the whole point I've been trying to get across. > > > > > > If your server does support numeric uids/gids, and has the same mapping > between numeric uids/gids and username/groupname as your clients, then you > will see _no_ change in behaviour. > > > > > > If your server does support numeric uids/gids, but the mapping between > > > numeric uids/gids and username/groupname differs between server and client > > > (e.g.. uid=20 maps to different users on the client and server) then you > > > already had a problem in that creating the file using NFSv4 would result > > > in you seeing the wrong owner and/or group. If this case, and this case > > > only, the change to nfs4_disable_idmapper will result in you now seeing > > > the correct owner/group for these files (just as if you were using NFSv3). > > The only thing I can say is that in the moment client and server are using > rpc.idmapd and it works perfectly well. Then why are you complaining? "This patch does nothing for me is NOT a reason to stop others from benefiting from it" > > > > > > IOW: the only people who will want to use the old setting are those with > > > broken servers that return incorrect errors when confronted with a numeric > > > uid/gid. We have found no evidence that any such servers exist during the > > > last full year of testing. > > > > Actually, let me amend that last statement. > > > > The only broken server we found was the Linux server, which was > > returning NFS4ERR_BADNAME in a situation where the protocol specified > > that it should be returning NFS4ERR_BADOWNER. This is why we have the > > little comment "The following works around a Linux server bug!" in the > > client code. > > Commit f6af99ec1b261e21219d5eba99e3af48fc6c32d4 (nfsd4: name->id mapping > > should fail with BADOWNER not BADNAME) fixed that server bug exactly one > > year ago, and the fix was subsequently pushed to stable@xxxxxxxxxx... > > > > IOW: unless you find something earth-shattering when you enable the > > option in your existing clients (the option has existed since 2.6.39), > > I'd prefer to change the default as soon as possible in order to fix the > > existing brokenness for those people running NFSv4 without the benefit > > of an ldap/nis/yp server to ensure a homogeneous uid/gid name space... > > I always thought that the idmapper with its translation were exactly for that > case. If I have a homogenous uid/gid name space why would I want to use names > and translate anyway? For RPCSEC_GSS authentication. That's the only case that the original RFC3530 cared about. The problems arise when people use AUTH_SYS, and this protocol change+patch is the solution. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.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
