Hi Steve, Neil, On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 01:06:49PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote: > Hi, > > in Debian and Ubuntu, the configuration file /etc/nfs.conf is only > placed on disk in the postinst script[1]. In this scenario it's possible > to have the nfs-common generators run before /etc/nfs.conf exists[2], > via another package's postinst calling systemctl daemon-reload. Since > there is no /etc/nfs.conf yet, defaults are assumed and the generators > exit silently, and the corresponding static units are used. > > But in Debian/Ubuntu, the rpc_pipefs directory is /run/rpc_pipefs, and > not the one specified in the static units, and thus we get it mounted in > the wrong directory. > > It seems best to always rely on the generators, as they will always be > able to produce the correct target and mount units. > > For reference, this was first brought up in this thread[3]. > > Producing an upstream set of patches was a bit confusing, since these > systemd units are highly distro dependent. They are not even installed > via `make install` because of this, so I have more confidence in the > first patch of the series. > > I produced a Debian package with these two patches applied on top of > Debian's 2.6.3[6], and ran the DEP8 tests of nfs-utils[4] and autofs[5], > which exercise some simple v3 and v4 mounts, with and without kerberos. > These tests passed[7][8] (ephemeral links, will be gone once the PPA is > destroyed). > > 1. https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nfs-utils/tree/debian/nfs-common.postinst?h=applied/ubuntu/devel#n6 > 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nfs-utils/+bug/1971935/comments/22 > 3. https://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=165729895515639&w=4 > 4. https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nfs-utils/tree/debian/tests?h=applied/ubuntu/lunar-devel > 5. https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/autofs/tree/debian/tests?h=applied/ubuntu/lunar-devel > 6. https://code.launchpad.net/~ahasenack/ubuntu/+source/nfs-utils/+git/nfs-utils/+ref/upstream-nfs-utils-test > 7. https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-mantic-ahasenack-nfs-upstream-test/mantic/amd64/a/autofs/20230728_135149_0895b@/log.gz > 8. https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-mantic-ahasenack-nfs-upstream-test/mantic/amd64/n/nfs-utils/20230728_150122_3ef18@/log.gz > > Andreas Hasenack (2): > Always run the rpc_pipefs generator > Use the generated units instead of static ones > > configure.ac | 8 +------- > systemd/Makefile.am | 5 ----- > systemd/rpc-pipefs-generator.c | 3 --- > systemd/rpc_pipefs.target | 3 --- > systemd/rpc_pipefs.target.in | 3 --- > systemd/var-lib-nfs-rpc_pipefs.mount | 10 ---------- > systemd/var-lib-nfs-rpc_pipefs.mount.in | 10 ---------- > 7 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 41 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 systemd/rpc_pipefs.target > delete mode 100644 systemd/rpc_pipefs.target.in > delete mode 100644 systemd/var-lib-nfs-rpc_pipefs.mount > delete mode 100644 systemd/var-lib-nfs-rpc_pipefs.mount.in Is this patch series as prposed by Andreas acceptable upstream? We have this change in Debian since the 1:2.6.3-1 upload, https://tracker.debian.org/news/1442835/accepted-nfs-utils-1263-1-source-into-unstable/, with no regression reported TTBOMK. For reference, the patch series is here in the linux-nfs archives (referencing it here explicitly as b4 mbox seems not to get all the 3 mails when requesting the cover letter): https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/CANYNYEEy2vf2rxLFeQ0hkstPrvF=eeA-joc0imGZt96Q+_r44w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/CANYNYEFKtw+_Y-NrOoQt9G9eund2C0=XMrXBj8mt1L=ebrSkLQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/CANYNYEHETbcqmEhE7BB57bCH03J-XT986Bb+DucdpbV8KHeZug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Regards, Salvatore
