From: Patrick Goetz <pgoetz@math.utexas.edu>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
Dai Qizhi <qzdai@clustertech.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: client side see wrong directory entries with nfs_export on overlayfs
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:35:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <795e539b-21e5-be97-d464-6dd087318f48@math.utexas.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1522235739.18706.13.camel@kernel.org>
On 03/28/2018 06:15 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Long, long ago, the fsid for the export was almost always determined by
> the device major/minor tuple. That became really problematic whenever
> devices got reordered after adding a disk to the system and rebooting.
> So, Neil Brown added the ability to determine the fsid from the
> libblkdev uuid (see nfs-utils commit e91ff0175602c, and kernel commits
> from around that time).
>
I recently got burned by this because it appears that bind-mounted XFS
exports are somehow different from bind-mounted ext4 exports? I.e. I
was able to export one bind mounted filesystem (under an NFS4 root
export) with no fsid, but when I tried to add another one (also a bind
mount under the same root), the export failed in an odd way. The only
difference was in the first case the underlying filesystem was ext4 and
the other XFS. I'll post a question about this later, but for now ...
This seems like bad design. Wouldn't it make more sense to require that
an fsid be assigned to all exports? Then there's no question in the
user's mind of do I need an fsid or don't I?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-29 16:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20180327182450.38D9.733CD922@clustertech.com>
[not found] ` <CAOQ4uxgtD1F_S_tGoAKo7egqbXRGa-sM6SL-Ab7K62LN0FYBSA@mail.gmail.com>
2018-03-28 1:14 ` client side see wrong directory entries with nfs_export on overlayfs Dai Qizhi
2018-03-28 4:45 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-03-28 11:15 ` Jeff Layton
2018-03-28 13:57 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-03-29 16:35 ` Patrick Goetz [this message]
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=795e539b-21e5-be97-d464-6dd087318f48@math.utexas.edu \
--to=pgoetz@math.utexas.edu \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qzdai@clustertech.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).