From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, simo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] sunrpc: don't wait for write before allowing reads from use-gss-proxy file
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 17:54:21 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140105225421.GA24059@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140106093744.14fc3670@notabene.brown>
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:37:44AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:21:50 -0500 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 07:28:30AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > It doesn't make much sense to make reads from this procfile hang. As
> > > far as I can tell, only gssproxy itself will open this file and it
> > > never reads from it. Change it to just give the present setting of
> > > sn->use_gss_proxy without waiting for anything.
> >
> > I think my *only* reason for doing this was to give a simple way to wait
> > for gss-proxy to start (just wait for a read to return).
> >
> > As long as gss-proxy has some way to say "I'm up and running", and as
> > long as that comes after writing to use-gss-proxy, we're fine.
> >
>
>
> Only tangentially related to the above email .....
>
> I had a look at this new-fangled gssproxy thing and while it mostly seems
> like a good idea, I find the hard-coding of "/var/run/gssproxy.sock" in the
> kernel source .... disturbing.
> You never know when some user-space might want to change that - maybe to
> "/run/gssproxy.sock" (unlikely I know - but possible).
>
> Probably the easiest would be to hand the path to the kernel.
>
> e.g. instead of writing '1' to "use-gss-proxy", we could
> echo /my/path/gss-proxy-sock > /proc/net/rpc/use-gss-proxy
>
> Then you could even use an 'abstract' socket name if you wanted. i.e. one
> starting with a nul and which doesn't exist anywhere in the filesystem.
> I would feel a lot more comfortable with that than with the current
> hard-coding.
See also RPCBIND_SOCK_PATHNAME. (I *think* that's completely hardcoded,
not just a default.)
I get the general principle. I have a hard time seeing how it would be
a problem in practice.
If we wanted to do as you suggest, I suppose we could even special-case
the string "1" (at least for a while) to make the change
backwards-compatible.
I'd like to see the same argument made for the rpcbind case.
--b.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-05 22:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-01 12:28 [RFC PATCH 0/5] sunrpc: change handling of use-gss-proxy file Jeff Layton
2014-01-01 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] sunrpc: don't wait for write before allowing reads from " Jeff Layton
2014-01-02 21:21 ` J. Bruce Fields
2014-01-02 22:26 ` Jeff Layton
2014-01-02 22:40 ` J. Bruce Fields
2014-01-02 23:27 ` Jeff Layton
2014-01-03 8:14 ` Simo Sorce
2014-01-03 16:23 ` J. Bruce Fields
2014-01-03 22:06 ` Simo Sorce
2014-01-03 22:34 ` J. Bruce Fields
2014-01-04 15:28 ` Simo Sorce
2014-01-04 16:10 ` J. Bruce Fields
2014-01-04 14:18 ` Jeff Layton
2014-01-05 22:37 ` NeilBrown
2014-01-05 22:54 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2014-01-05 23:30 ` NeilBrown
2014-01-05 23:38 ` Chuck Lever
2014-01-06 1:45 ` Jeff Layton
2014-01-06 6:36 ` Simo Sorce
2014-01-06 15:04 ` J. Bruce Fields
2014-01-06 15:23 ` Simo Sorce
2014-01-01 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] sunrpc: don't hang indefinitely in wait_for_gss_proxy Jeff Layton
2014-01-01 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] sunrpc: wait for gssproxy to start on initial upcall attempt before falling back to legacy upcall Jeff Layton
2014-01-02 21:35 ` J. Bruce Fields
2014-01-02 23:10 ` Jeff Layton
2014-01-03 16:33 ` J. Bruce Fields
2014-01-03 17:03 ` Jeff Layton
2014-01-01 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] sunrpc: fix potential race between setting use_gss_proxy and the upcall rpc_clnt Jeff Layton
2014-01-01 12:28 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] sunrpc: allow gssproxy to be explicitly disabled from userland Jeff Layton
2014-01-01 19:53 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] sunrpc: change handling of use-gss-proxy file Simo Sorce
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=20140105225421.GA24059@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=simo@redhat.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).