> On Sep 19, 2017, at 4:42 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 03:56:50PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >> A proof of concept is nice, but it isn't sufficient for merging >> NFS/VSOCK into upstream Linux. Unlike Ceph, NFS is an Internet >> standard. We can't introduce changes as we please and expect >> the rest of the world to follow us. >> >> I know the Ganesha folks chafe at this requirement, because >> standardization progress can sometimes be measured in geological >> time units. > > It doesn't need to be--I think we're only asking for a few pages here, > and nothing especially complicated (at the protocol level). That would define RPC over VSOCK. I would like to see a problem statement here, and we'd want to find a normative reference defining VSOCK addressing. Does one exist? My sense is that NFS on VSOCK would need more. The proof of concept I'm aware of drops a lot of functionality (for example, NFSv2/3 is excluded, and so is RPCSEC GSS and NFSv4.0 backchannel) to make NFS work on this transport. Interoperability would require that list be written somewhere. We also need to deal with filehandles and lock state during guest live migration. That feels like more than a few pages to me. > That > shouldn't take so long. (Not to be published as an RFC, necessarily, > but to get far enough along that we can be pretty certain it won't need > incompatible changes.) -- Chuck Lever -- 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
