From nobody Wed Feb 26 23:25:34 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Z39ZC354lz5p9Db for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 23:25:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R11" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Z39ZC298Zz3Xnx; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 23:25:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1740612339; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to; bh=DePFCXYFCY9oxrLrarigEeHGGPGjX3yjuzgr32wGL1c=; b=AnHukl9XYF5VzAzElKyUKoxrd6Y1aNDZjaLX0PNDzhSFXSqCH3El8gMtBm7O31ongeTsJh mf6sJQGLbVGXGEs4FZQlwn8HB4/PMp3LtXuVzZwOeo9QEPg/cCcvArzuo6UNdsnlbYzA90 kL86rOo+5omYG3iPQxxr1ajHHwfblkDHa64n9iHexki3ShDqEQJgQeFzJvDk/oHxdd+Fga ZwrFDTbuQrGPjrBwQf3QdRFtGUMsva+OEtgKd1qfy2n6wKvjXL39ZX/dXzNb+OgLjb4wlf tILJjPwCxKIQfafHQ6mRayZ2mN6Ig06OGdXwaTSNjwe/ehGrwibduMk+hpHNyw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=dkim; d=freebsd.org; t=1740612339; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=A5/TFEdKiH9R+SYiAJ8F13F5xwhKCvgbIuet6uNxDEWUenS5hLt8TNRpwRHbTmsImL/EXn mTO20cVsA+RonwtIq9QooSeBW8hBiPc0hSy9BTdBOcFxQz1y7KgMDmBCid8ECgAkGWTNXR dF9RIK5rWzo9oH7t2nU8wcTIFiRZgaBrbmU9L8Gonh2PSvwx4l6UnlCWeq+1XoR8iRXoqd EMm95OeqYcu4YpWQA7gpqpZj40/5p0JUtyn5Im7mMqndRrO1gZdYZSNccwmhJfFVEz2TSB 5zSSkhGHdQySU3vjI8KYMEEHzDh/pfSz75g+kSzsOPGQi0haqMJGbVn0P9pULQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx1.freebsd.org; none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1740612339; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to; bh=DePFCXYFCY9oxrLrarigEeHGGPGjX3yjuzgr32wGL1c=; b=UapUNK2suLUCtTIFxuCPckwtOVWVcAGH11vGS3UtUcydB58y4XVrzCfrAP4MorzXF93Xb7 I8ziayIykInG99/+tEn5aYn/PYIH/PMp5gKW1RSxRf797kwKRdYMNNXNXG0402n5Qa7WIc zuT2Bc8+i2+Nmh7opQm7Q+niWff8FRPre4tllLhoundBoqNhU6aFFYOQxr54lzL3s9bblU KZupa8nLqqWa9l/KL/xcf/kz/Ky+6nuxTNxHJbBcLKdzzAPmTYG8WQ6p9V20qlCPXZKS8M UhCvHcO5xwkWspk/1kZhH5gfGjonZzyzJAGZR3ZlJQC3Du5+L8lE5hcAUw58OA== Received: from cell.glebi.us (glebi.us [162.251.186.162]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: glebius) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Z39Z921pgz15yY; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 23:25:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:25:34 -0800 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Cy Schubert , Rick Macklem , Chris Cc: Lars Tunkrans , FreeBSD CURRENT , Toomas Soome , Steve Rikli Subject: Re: RFC: mount_nfs failure due to dns not running yet Message-ID: List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4f09507d6ddba4979a418e7f30f1f94a@h8spam.org> <20250223205311.7569a16a@slippy> Hi guys, replying to all, asnwering Chris and Cy emails that I did not reply earlier. I trimmed quoting, but of course I've read your emails! Point 1. Please let's forget about 'late' option and any other rc(8) hints and magic. As I already explained the problem can (and usually does) live outside of the particular host that does the mount. It could be a boot race of a bunch of networking equipment, it could be some other network outage, etc. Point 2. Both Chris and Cy said that this is not a bug, since it was there for so many years. Sorry, this argument doesn't buys me. It is a typical cognitive distortion named "normalization" or "desensitization," where an individual becomes so accustomed to a negative situation that they no longer recognize it as problematic. I am also affected by that, and it is very good practice sometimes to force yourself to look at something with a fresh look. With a fresh look a suggestion to hardcode IP addresses in hosts(5) or doesn't look scalable neither modern option. I totally agree that in certain setups it is the right way to do, but not always. Point 3. I got our concern on a mount_nfs(8) blocking on a DNS resolution viewed as a POLA violation. So I suggest a trade-off: let's isolate the retrying behavior only to the background mode. That would fix the problem of machine booting without mounts and is very unlikely to affect anyones POLA feelings: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D49145 As the review text notes at the end we got a problem in the libc getaddrinfo(3). Rick also noticed it earlier when making his patch. Our resolver can't tell us a negative answer versus a timeour. This definitely is a problem and I already started investigating it. But definitely out of scope of NFS. -- Gleb Smirnoff