From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: trond.myklebust@primarydata.com, schumaker.anna@gmail.com,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, chuck.lever@oracle.com,
jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] nfs/nfsd/sunrpc: enforce NFSv4 transport requirements
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 07:55:55 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488200155.2876.3.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2c8602da-5e1b-a7d1-b03b-2a06442450f9@talpey.com>
On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 07:08 -0500, Tom Talpey wrote:
> On 2/27/2017 6:59 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > What we'd need to make that happen, I think is a [global] stanza in
> > nfs.conf with a single 'nfsd_v3' boolean that defaults to off. If
>
> Don't forget v2! And maybe even v4.0 if you're encouraging non-legacy
> operation. RFC3530 was published 14 years ago, btw. RFC1813 in 1995,
> and RFC1094 in 1989.
I think v2 already defaults to off these days? But yeah, I could see us
adding a similar boolean for v2. Maybe we don't need a new switch at
all, and just need to have everything look at the [nfsd] vers2= and
vers3= config file options?
I think wiring nfsd and mountd up properly for this would be fairly easy
here. statd is a little tougher since we don't want to run it or sm-
notify at all if v2/3 are disabled. I wonder if there is any way we can
make systemd look at this config file and decide whether to start statd
based on whether either of those options is set?
I'd have no issue with eventually defaulting with v4.0 disabled as well,
but there are a fair number of clients in the field that don't support
v4.1 (or don't support it well). I think we'd need to wait and see how
much grief we get about disabling v3 by default before we go there.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-27 13:04 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
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 [this message]
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=1488200155.2876.3.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).