From: Frank van Maarseveen <frankvm@frankvm.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: Linux NFS mailing list <nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: RFC: nlmclnt_grant() address check vs. callback address binding
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 09:01:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070703070109.GA8558@janus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1183424670.6479.38.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:04:30PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 17:49 +0200, Frank van Maarseveen wrote:
>
> > At first I thought fixing the server is the right thing to do because
> > the server behavior is arguably incorrect. Not easy but certainly doable
> > (I'd do it if it has a chance of being accepted). It might also help
> > NATting NFS traffic in some cases. However:
> >
> > - I'm not sure if an address check such as in nlmclnt_grant()
> > is actually buying us anything.
>
> Exactly how else is the client going to figure out which lock this
> corresponds to?
The filehandle + pid/svid + lock start + lock end as it is doing right
now. Filehandles offer a pretty strong check already because they are
designed to handle inode reuse too.
The 32 bit pid/svid/lockowner number is conclusive.
>
> > - clients requiring a correct callback src address might not
> > work with other NFS server implementations and/or (future?)
> > concepts for clustering/load balancing.
>
> NFSv3 development is dead. NLM locking development is doubly so...
Not everyone is using (or can use) NFSv4. This is not about developing
NFSv3 but about optimizing/fixing it in its current deployment.
>
> > - Multiple IP addresses may be a workaround for reserved port
> > shortage.
>
> There is _NO_ way for the client to figure out what lock the granted
> request refers to if the server starts transmitting from random IP
> addresses.
> * There is no universal namespace for filehandles that can be used
> to identify which file the granted request is meant for
> * The cookie is not guaranteed to be the same as that sent by the
> client for the LOCK request
> * There is nothing else in the nlm_lock that can be used to
> identify which file we're talking about.
The svid/pid. See nlm_find_lockowner().
--
Frank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-03 7:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-02 15:49 RFC: nlmclnt_grant() address check vs. callback address binding Frank van Maarseveen
2007-07-03 1:04 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-07-03 7:01 ` Frank van Maarseveen [this message]
2007-07-03 12:03 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-07-03 20:47 ` Frank van Maarseveen
2007-07-03 21:32 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-07-03 20:33 ` 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=20070703070109.GA8558@janus \
--to=frankvm@frankvm.com \
--cc=nfs@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
/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