linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: trond.myklebust@primarydata.com, schumaker.anna@gmail.com,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, chuck.lever@oracle.com,
	tom@talpey.com, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce NFSv4 transport requirements
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:34:24 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1487972064.3314.8.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170224212516.GH26378@fieldses.org>

On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 16:25 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> The one other minor thing we could do is skip adding the UDP listener
> entirely in the v4-only case.  I think that's a job for rpc.nfsd?
> 
> --b.
> 

Yeah I think we'd need to fix that in rpc.nfsd.

Maybe it's time to just start doing having it do TCP-only by default
anyway? Make it so you have to explicitly enable UDP listeners if you
want them? Does anyone seriously run NFS over UDP these days for
anything other than interop testing? :)


> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 01:25:21PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > v2: comment clarifications, and commit log cleanup. No functional changes.
> > 
> > RFC5661 says:
> > 
> >    NFSv4.1 works over Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) and non-RDMA-
> >    based transports with the following attributes:
> > 
> > 
> >    o  The transport supports reliable delivery of data, which NFSv4.1
> >       requires but neither NFSv4.1 nor RPC has facilities for ensuring
> >       [34].
> > 
> >    o  The transport delivers data in the order it was sent.  Ordered
> >       delivery simplifies detection of transmit errors, and simplifies
> >       the sending of arbitrary sized requests and responses via the
> >       record marking protocol [3].
> > 
> > ...and then some hand-wavy stuff about congestion control. RFC7530
> > doesn't mention needing reliable and ordered delivery, but it does need
> > congestion control.
> > 
> > In practical terms, that means we should be excluding NFSv4 from UDP
> > transports. The NFS server has never enforced this requirement,
> > however, so a user could issue NFSv4 calls against the server via UDP.
> > 
> > This patchset adds a small bit of infrastructure to the sunrpc layer to
> > enforce this requirement, and has the nfs and nfsd layers set the
> > appropriate flags for it on their server-side transports. It also has
> > the rpcbind client skip registering the protocol version on a UDP port
> > when that flag is set.
> > 
> > Lightly tested by hand, but it's fairly straightforward.
> > 
> > Jeff Layton (4):
> >   sunrpc: turn bitfield flags in svc_version into bools
> >   sunrpc: flag transports as having both reliable and ordered delivery,
> >     and congestion control
> >   nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce transport requirements for NFSv4
> >   sunrpc: don't register UDP port with rpcbind when version needs
> >     congestion control
> > 
> >  fs/nfs/callback_xdr.c                    |  6 ++++--
> >  fs/nfsd/nfs2acl.c                        |  1 -
> >  fs/nfsd/nfs3acl.c                        |  1 -
> >  fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c                       | 13 +++++++------
> >  include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h               | 12 ++++++++----
> >  include/linux/sunrpc/svc_xprt.h          |  1 +
> >  net/sunrpc/svc.c                         | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  net/sunrpc/svcsock.c                     |  1 +
> >  net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_transport.c |  8 ++++++++
> >  9 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > -- 
> > 2.9.3

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-24 21:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-23 17:03 [PATCH 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce requirement for congestion control protocols in NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 1/4] sunrpc: flag transports as using IETF approved congestion control protocols Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 19:42   ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-23 20:00     ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 20:06       ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-23 20:11         ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-23 20:26           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-23 20:33             ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-23 20:55               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-24 15:08                 ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-24 17:17                   ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:03                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-02-23 20:32           ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 20:17         ` Chuck Lever
2017-02-23 20:15     ` Chuck Lever
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 2/4] sunrpc: turn bitfield flags in svc_version into bools Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 3/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce congestion control protocol requirement for NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:03 ` [PATCH 4/4] sunrpc: don't register UDP port with rpcbind when version needs congestion control Jeff Layton
2017-02-23 17:17 ` [PATCH 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce requirement for congestion control protocols in NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce NFSv4 transport requirements Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25   ` [PATCH v2 1/4] sunrpc: turn bitfield flags in svc_version into bools Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25   ` [PATCH v2 2/4] sunrpc: flag transports as having both reliable and ordered delivery, and congestion control Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25   ` [PATCH v2 3/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce transport requirements for NFSv4 Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:25   ` [PATCH v2 4/4] sunrpc: don't register UDP port with rpcbind when version needs congestion control Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 18:38   ` [PATCH v2 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce NFSv4 transport requirements Chuck Lever
2017-02-24 18:53     ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-24 21:23       ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-24 18:53   ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-24 21:22     ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-24 21:25   ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-24 21:34     ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2017-02-24 21:44       ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-02-27 11:59         ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-27 12:08           ` Tom Talpey
2017-02-27 12:55             ` Jeff Layton
2017-02-27 14:20               ` J. Bruce Fields

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1487972064.3314.8.camel@redhat.com \
    --to=jlayton@redhat.com \
    --cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
    --cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=schumaker.anna@gmail.com \
    --cc=tom@talpey.com \
    --cc=trond.myklebust@primarydata.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).