On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 05:43:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 05:02:47PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 05:45:43PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > The approach in this series
> > > ---------------------------
> > > AF_VSOCK stream sockets can be used for NFSv4.1 much in the same way as TCP.
> > > RFC 1831 record fragments divide messages since SOCK_STREAM semantics are
> > > present. The backchannel shares the connection just like the default TCP
> > > configuration.
> >
> > So the NFSv4 backchannel isn't handled for now, I assume.
>
> Right, I did not touch nfs4_callback_up_net(), only
> nfs41_callback_up_net().
>
> If I'm reading the code right NFSv4 uses a separate listen port for the
> backchannel instead of sharing the client's socket?
Right.
> This is possible to implement with AF_VSOCK but I have only tested
> NFSv4.1 so far. Should I go ahead and do this?
Personally I'd make it a lower priority--I don't see why you can't make
4.1 a requirement for the new transport--but I'd be curious what others
have to say.
> > And I guess
> > NFSv2/v3 is out too thanks to rpcbind? Which maybe is fine.
>
> Yes, I ignored rpcbind and didn't test NFSv2/v3.
>
> > Do we need an IETF draft or similar to document how NFS should work over
> > AF_VSOCK?
>
> I am not familiar with the standards process but I came across a few
> places where it makes sense to have a standard:
>
> * SUNRPC netid for AF_VSOCK (currently "tcp", "udp", and others exist)
> * The uaddr string format ("vsock:...")
Off the top of my head I can't remember where else that's used in the
protocol other than in setting up the 4.0 callback connection (and in
rpcbind).
> * Use of RFC 1831 record fragments (just like TCP) over AF_VSOCK
> SOCK_STREAM sockets
As far as I can tell, 1831 claims to be independent of any transport
protocol details: "The RPC protocol can be implemented on several
different transport protocols. The RPC protocol does not care how a
message is passed from one process to another, but only with
specification and interpretation of messages." And: "When RPC messages
are passed on top of a byte stream transport protocol (like TCP)"....
So perhaps there's nothing more to say here.
> These are all at the SUNRPC level rather than at the NFS protocol level.
>
> Any idea who I need to talk to?
Anyay, if there is anything to be worked out, nfsv4@xxxxxxxx is the
place to go.
--b.
--
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
