On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 10:04 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 01:36:13AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 20:45 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:37:44 +1100 > > > NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:21:50 -0500 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 07:28:30AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > > It doesn't make much sense to make reads from this procfile hang. As > > > > > > far as I can tell, only gssproxy itself will open this file and it > > > > > > never reads from it. Change it to just give the present setting of > > > > > > sn->use_gss_proxy without waiting for anything. > > > > > > > > > > I think my *only* reason for doing this was to give a simple way to wait > > > > > for gss-proxy to start (just wait for a read to return). > > > > > > > > > > As long as gss-proxy has some way to say "I'm up and running", and as > > > > > long as that comes after writing to use-gss-proxy, we're fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only tangentially related to the above email ..... > > > > > > > > I had a look at this new-fangled gssproxy thing and while it mostly seems > > > > like a good idea, I find the hard-coding of "/var/run/gssproxy.sock" in the > > > > kernel source .... disturbing. > > > > You never know when some user-space might want to change that - maybe to > > > > "/run/gssproxy.sock" (unlikely I know - but possible). > > > > > > > > Probably the easiest would be to hand the path to the kernel. > > > > > > > > e.g. instead of writing '1' to "use-gss-proxy", we could > > > > echo /my/path/gss-proxy-sock > /proc/net/rpc/use-gss-proxy > > > > > > > > Then you could even use an 'abstract' socket name if you wanted. i.e. one > > > > starting with a nul and which doesn't exist anywhere in the filesystem. > > > > I would feel a lot more comfortable with that than with the current > > > > hard-coding. > > > > > > > > > > I like that idea -- particularly if you keep the legacy behavior that > > > writing a '1' to the file makes it default to /var/run/gssproxy.sock so > > > we don't break compatability with older gssproxy releases. > > > > I have no problem adding this to gss-proxy but I wonder if it is really > > that important. > > > > In what case gss-proxy will not be able to create a file > > named /var/run/gssproxy.sock ? The only case would be for the distro to > > outlaw creating a path named /var/run, note that /var/run does not need > > to be the same as /run for gssproxy to be able to create a socket. > > Well, I suppose we could fix the hard-coded kernel paths but still leave > it hard-coded in gss-proxy until someone demonstrated a need for it to > be configurable. Sockets are already configurable in gss-proxy, so I would just need to change the init function that writes to proc, not a big deal. > I like the principle but don't see this as a very high priority. Me either, but if someone contributes the kernel side I will fix gss-proxy in short order to follow it. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- 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
