On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 13:45 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
>
> On 02/23/2018 12:05 PM, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > Hey Olga,
> > >
> > > On 02/22/2018 02:28 PM, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> > > > It is possible that userland can pass to the kernel mismatching
> > > > inputs for the minorversion. like vers=4.1,minorversion=0.
> > > > Instead
> > > > of making the kernel responposible for 'choosing' the
> > > > minorversion,
> > > > make the userland always responsible for not sending a
> > > > mismatch.
> > >
> > > I'm thinking this is probably more of mount problem...
> >
> > Yes the problem is a broken user land sending incorrect arguments
> > but
> > I still think the kernel needs to do sanity checking on arguments
> > to
> > prevent this from happening again.
> >
> > > mount -t nfs4 -o minorversion=0 server:/export /mnt
> > >
> > > shouldn't this be a v4.0 mount instead of a 4.2 mount?
> >
> > Yes I would think this should create a v4.0 mount.
>
> Way back when... there was some talk about deprecating
> minorversion= flag... Since it is broken, maybe this is
> a good time to do it?
>
> Thoughts?
I've never liked the separate v4-only 'minorversion' keyword, which is
why I introduced the 'version=4.x' format. My preference is therefore
that we continue to deprecate use of 'minorversion' with a view to
killing it off completely.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��w��� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
