From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:38912 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932550Ab1KDOZS (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:25:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:24:32 -0400 To: "Myklebust, Trond" Cc: Chuck Lever , Jim Rees , Lukas Razik , Linux NFS Mailing List Subject: Re: [BUG?] Maybe NFS bug since 2.6.37 on SPARC64 Message-ID: <20111104142432.GA31541@fieldses.org> References: <20111103211100.GA8393@umich.edu> <1320356241.80563.YahooMailNeo@web24706.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <92DF2E31-FABF-40A5-8F78-89B64363568B@oracle.com> <1320361764.48851.YahooMailNeo@web24708.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <39983D1A-70A8-49A1-A4E2-926637780F75@oracle.com> <1320399858.11675.YahooMailNeo@web24703.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <20111104132050.GB13788@umich.edu> <01668DEE-43F7-464B-9BCF-6E52DF0B5956@oracle.com> <2E1EB2CF9ED1CB4AA966F0EB76EAB4430BFA9256@SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <2E1EB2CF9ED1CB4AA966F0EB76EAB4430BFA9256@SACMVEXC2-PRD.hq.netapp.com> From: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 07:09:41AM -0700, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chuck Lever [mailto:chuck.lever@oracle.com] > > Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 10:02 AM > > To: Jim Rees > > Cc: Lukas Razik; Myklebust, Trond; Linux NFS Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [BUG?] Maybe NFS bug since 2.6.37 on SPARC64 > > > > > > On Nov 4, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Jim Rees wrote: > > > As we move toward nfs4 someone will have to give some thought to > > nfsroot. > > > It's hard to imagine we could put enough nfs4 cruft into the kernel > > > (gssd, > > > idmapd) to make it work. > > > > A kernel-level basic id mapper is being considered. That would allow > NFSv4 > > with AUTH_SYS, if we can get the NIC problems squared away. > > We already have a solution for NFSv4 and nfsroot: use auth_sys and set > the nfs4_disable_idmapping flag. That does require an rfc3530-bis > compatible server, but it shouldn't be long before we see those > appearing in the wild... And I *do* want to get back to that, I just haven't had the time. (Patches welcome if someone else is motivated.) --b.