Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:16:11 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: Steve Wills <swills@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "andreas.nagy@frequentis.com" <andreas.nagy@frequentis.com> Subject: Re: ESXi NFSv4.1 client id is nasty Message-ID: <CANCZdfph9nsCZ%2BEe_aKJbKS%2B=b9M2StG33ZOLGm9kkWMbpN9SA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <YTOPR0101MB095381400B6BE6DF1E9604BDDD700@YTOPR0101MB0953.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> References: <YTOPR0101MB0953E687D013E2E97873061ADD720@YTOPR0101MB0953.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <d5f86680-6bd3-8513-b293-3fbab5b1277b@FreeBSD.org> <YTOPR0101MB0953070582B97A0B62B7A4FFDD710@YTOPR0101MB0953.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <8ceea008-f827-580b-8ca6-4a5fcb028e83@FreeBSD.org> <YTOPR0101MB095381400B6BE6DF1E9604BDDD700@YTOPR0101MB0953.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:11 AM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > Steve Wills wrote: > On 06/18/18 17:42, Rick Macklem wrote: > >> Steve Wills wrote: > >>> Would it be possible or reasonable to use the client ID to log a > message > >>> telling the admin to enable a sysctl to enable the hacks? > >> Yes. However, this client implementation id is only seen by the server > >> when the client makes a mount attempt. > >> > >> I suppose it could log the message and fail the mount, if the "hack" > sysctl isn't > >> set? > > > >I hadn't thought of failing the mount, just defaulting not enabling the > >hacks unless the admin chooses to enable them. But at the same time > >being proactive about telling the admin to enable them. > > > >I.E. keep the implementation RFC compliant since we wouldn't be changing > >the behavior based on the implementation ID, only based upon the admin > >setting the sysctl, which we told them to do based on the implementation > ID. > Well, without one of the hacks (as head currently is) the mounts always > fail, > so ESXi mounts failing is a feature of the "unhacked" server. > (The ReclaimComplete failure fails the mount.) > > >Just an idea, maybe Warner's suggestion is a better one. > Yes, I think Warner has the right idea, although logging a message w.r.t. > the > ReclaimComplete failure (which fails these mounts) when the hacks are > turned > off sounds like a good one to me. > I think so too, rate limited, with an invitation to turn on the hack :) Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfph9nsCZ%2BEe_aKJbKS%2B=b9M2StG33ZOLGm9kkWMbpN9SA>