Re: [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] Maybe avoid gssd upcall timeout

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On May 15, 2013, at 12:24 PM, "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 12:22 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> On May 15, 2013, at 12:18 PM, "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 12:25 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>> Hi-
>>>> 
>>>> Here's a stab at addressing the 15 second wait for some 3.10 sec=sys
>>>> mounts where the client is not running rpc.gssd.
>>>> 
>>>> After reverting the "use krb5i for SETCLIENTID" patch, I've added
>>>> the AUTH_SYS fallback in the EACCES case in
>>>> nfs4_discover_server_trunking().  I'm not sure whether we need to
>>>> supplement what's there now, or replace it.
>>>> 
>>>> "case -ENOKEY:" is added so the kernel will recognize that when gssd
>>>> is changed to return that instead of EACCES in this case.  If the
>>>> second patch is appled to 3.7 stable and following, it might be a way
>>>> to address the same regression in older kernels.
>>>> 
>>>> I've been focused on another bug this week, so this has seen very
>>>> light testing only.  Looking for comments.
>>> 
>>> I'd like to propose a different approach: we can set up rpc_pipefs files
>>> clnt/gssd and clnt/krb5 as "honeypots" that rpc.gssd will connect to,
>>> but that won't do any upcalls. When gssd connects, we set a
>>> per-rpc_net_ns variable that tells us 'gssd' is up and running. That
>>> variable only gets cleared if we see a timeout.
>> 
>> Note my solution is a short term gap filler.  Bruce and Jeff seem to want something that can fix current kernels without requiring user space changes, and I need something that will allow sec=krb5 mounts to work without a client keytab on kernels since 3.7.
>> 
>> I see your proposal as a long term fix, and not something that we can expect to apply without deploying gssd support at the same time.
> 
> How does it require gssd modifications?
> 
> The whole point is that it requires kernel-only changes, and only minor
> changes at that...

You'll have to be more specific then.  The impression I was left with last week was that this solution was a non-starter because one of the two end points wipes all the directories at certain times.

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux