On 11/18/2015 02:16 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:50:29 -0500
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> test_export takes a flag that just says whether to pass in the fsid or
>> not. This means that all we can test is the NFSEXP_FSIDi flag.
>>
>> Instead of doing that, pass in the actual export options that we
>> intend to use (sometimes or'ed with NFSEXP_FSID to test whether that
>> might be the reason for the failure).
>>
>> This allows us to test the actual export options that we plan to use,
>> and can allow the kernel to vet them properly before mount time.
>>
>> The rationale here is a patch that I have that will add the ability
>> for filesystems to opt out of subtree checking when they can't
>> properly support it.
>>
>> Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> utils/exportfs/exportfs.c | 10 +++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/utils/exportfs/exportfs.c b/utils/exportfs/exportfs.c
>> index c7a79a69b5d6..cac01fc25f9a 100644
>> --- a/utils/exportfs/exportfs.c
>> +++ b/utils/exportfs/exportfs.c
>> @@ -531,7 +531,7 @@ static int can_test(void)
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> -static int test_export(char *path, int with_fsid)
>> +static int test_export(char *path, int opts)
>> {
>> /* beside max path, buf size should take protocol str into account */
>> char buf[NFS_MAXPATHLEN+1+64] = { 0 };
>> @@ -545,7 +545,7 @@ static int test_export(char *path, int with_fsid)
>> qword_add(&bp, &len, path);
>> if (len < 1)
>> return 0;
>> - snprintf(bp, len, " 3 %d 65534 65534 0\n", with_fsid ? NFSEXP_FSID : 0);
>> + snprintf(bp, len, " 3 %d 65534 65534 0\n", opts);
>> fd = open("/proc/net/rpc/nfsd.export/channel", O_WRONLY);
>> if (fd < 0)
>> return 0;
>> @@ -587,12 +587,12 @@ validate_export(nfs_export *exp)
>>
>> if ((exp->m_export.e_flags & NFSEXP_FSID) || exp->m_export.e_uuid ||
>> fs_has_fsid) {
>> - if ( !test_export(path, 1)) {
>> + if ( !test_export(path, exp->m_export.e_flags)) {
>> xlog(L_ERROR, "%s does not support NFS export", path);
>> return;
>> }
>> - } else if ( ! test_export(path, 0)) {
>> - if (test_export(path, 1))
>> + } else if ( ! test_export(path, exp->m_export.e_flags)) {
>> + if (test_export(path, exp->m_export.e_flags & NFSEXP_FSID))
>
> Duh, that should of course be "exp->m_export.e_flags | NFSEXP_FSID".
> I'll plan to resend after I wait a bit for others to comment. Please
> don't merge this as-is though -- it obviously needs better testing.
>
> We might be able to simplify the above logic a little too...hmmm...
That logic did look a bit odd... I'll wait for the next version....
steved.
>
>> xlog(L_ERROR, "%s requires fsid= for NFS export", path);
>> else
>> xlog(L_ERROR, "%s does not support NFS export", path);
>
>
--
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
