Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 Oct 2005 12:44:35 -0400 | Subject | Re: [NFS] [PATCH] kNFSD - Allowing rpc.nfsd to setting of the port, transport and version the server will use | From | "J. Bruce Fields" <> |
| |
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 12:17:43PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > Here is a kernel patch that will enable the setting > of the port knfsd will listens on, the transport knfsd > will support and which NFS version will be advertised. > > The nfs-utils patch, which is also attached, will added > the following flags to rpc.nfsd that will enable the kernel > functionality (Note: These patches are NOT dependent on each > other. Meaning rpc.nfsd and knfsd will still function correctly > if one or the other patch do or do not exist): > > > -N or --no-nfs-version vers > This option can be used to request that rpc.nfsd does not offer > certain versions of NFS. The current version of rpc.nfsd can > support both NFS version 2,3 and the newer version 4.
So the obvious question is what will happen if someone does
rpc.nfsd -N 3
on a server supporting 2, 3, and 4.
It looks like the code in svc_create() will set pg_lovers to 2 and pg_hivers to 4 in that case. So if someone tries to use version 3, the error they get back will be a somewhat contradictory "sorry, I only support versions 2 through 4."
It seems to me that it'd be cleaner if the kernel interface only accepted a range (e.g., "2--4" or "2--3"). Then if someone attempted the above, they'll get an error back immediately.
Or svc_create could be adjusted to report a more conservative range ("2--2" or "4--4" instead of "2--4").
But I don't have really strong feelings about it. Maybe we shouldn't care enough about that case.
--b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |