On 1/11/2017 22:16, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 07:57:28PM +0800, Kinglong Mee wrote:
>> On 1/7/2017 05:05, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 09:05:11PM +0800, Kinglong Mee wrote:
>>>> test_export pass a export flags only marks NFSEXP_FSID,
>>>> nfsd may want other flags for export checking.
>>>
>>> Why? What problem does this fix?
>>
>> When testing the patch "NFSD: Only support readonly export for
>> !fsync and readonly filesystem", I found exportfs don't pass
>> all valid export flags to nfsd. So, make this patch.
>
> This function is meant to test whether a filesystem supports nfs export
> or not. It doesn't need the full set of export flags. Off the top of
> my head I can't see reason this would cause problems, but I'm not
> convinced it's safe, either. (New nfs-utils against old kernels might
> be a case to check, e.g. to see how unsupported flags are handled.)
There are two cases that passing the flags to nfsd,
1, exportfs checks the export entry, only NFSEXP_FSID without this patch,
2, mountd pass the validate export entry, all validate export flags.
When the new nfs-utils against old kernels,
user specifies an unsupported flags(Not NFSEXP_FSID),
exportfs doesn't warning that unsupported flags (without test),
mountd doesn't get the export entry for the flags.
If exportfs warning the unsupported flags, user can modify it and
do the right export.
Do I have an exact understanding?
thanks,
Kinglong Mee
>
> So until we have a reason we *need* this, just to be safe, I'd prefer to
> revert this patch.
>
> --b.
>
>>
>> thanks,
>> Kinglong Mee
>>
>>>
>>> --b.
>>>
>>>> This patch make sure exportfs pass all other flags to nfsd.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> utils/exportfs/exportfs.c | 12 +++++++-----
>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/utils/exportfs/exportfs.c b/utils/exportfs/exportfs.c
>>>> index 15a1583..bacf106 100644
>>>> --- a/utils/exportfs/exportfs.c
>>>> +++ b/utils/exportfs/exportfs.c
>>>> @@ -473,8 +473,10 @@ static int can_test(void)
>>>> return 1;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -static int test_export(char *path, int with_fsid)
>>>> +static int test_export(nfs_export *exp, int with_fsid)
>>>> {
>>>> + char *path = exp->m_export.e_path;
>>>> + int flags = exp->m_export.e_flags | (with_fsid ? NFSEXP_FSID : 0);
>>>> /* beside max path, buf size should take protocol str into account */
>>>> char buf[NFS_MAXPATHLEN+1+64] = { 0 };
>>>> char *bp = buf;
>>>> @@ -487,7 +489,7 @@ 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", flags);
>>>> fd = open("/proc/net/rpc/nfsd.export/channel", O_WRONLY);
>>>> if (fd < 0)
>>>> return 0;
>>>> @@ -529,12 +531,12 @@ 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(exp, 1)) {
>>>> 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(exp, 0)) {
>>>> + if (test_export(exp, 1))
>>>> xlog(L_ERROR, "%s requires fsid= for NFS export", path);
>>>> else
>>>> xlog(L_ERROR, "%s does not support NFS export", path);
>>>> --
>>>> 2.9.3
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>
>
--
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
