From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Tue Jun 19 14:16:18 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB97101C68F for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:16:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-io0-x233.google.com (mail-io0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2C9682CEB for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:16:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-io0-x233.google.com with SMTP id r24-v6so340739ioh.9 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 07:16:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=sM4Uwm1hRnuBXsAU0HJhsQ/8FONnRw2Fo5pTCtMqdLE=; b=IhXaUoj1rDt1KH6j7X6nlB3agsoOFid9LFqfVf3VAK32CAYTMizn9sCnRHbg5iGU9t vaHozs89qPcFuAuOiF/bV66td5Cb1+R2VrmiTv4OmrfUQSCCEOhKccjFfLCHx3jrU54I Nq8aSvhujOLKi5xauT9n0IjBAVRS2l9ou0uKGje8s3PWOfLAkjwBV4enPc9T/nRpzlo7 3H/NVwMoms6DFeEYEp89eoqfHquT1xZRF+Gh7q4MDEZtx+1imlIxD7Y353+Pmi4DoWnG k0F18NoGSzZc0ene5uDDqyztQdSAzuLZButZ1GAaF6SlwschImQIP+0IEjgZCDxQ1nRa K4gA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sM4Uwm1hRnuBXsAU0HJhsQ/8FONnRw2Fo5pTCtMqdLE=; b=fFryu6+ZknCpGiLt1MHeQ0V9J7RFwuEo5auL86E0K1//cqV6QZN3lKP0K/i/Ak9Ymd 7weab3EDeA3P80sssdpZyCaAJ9OslBuHIAo6nRaIZZic4t0BqDnE7YTRNuMRoNrDOl5n 1nlTmlVwf6TxesfO+XGamAhyJRLEOd0YPDEizaNkjdJv5o5a7iqHDyj4wFpmEXTgGoW/ +mnSDgLyDIGbjoJzgl00bX/Vg9O9Y9SmI/KVpHM/bEyfb/HryXARAKaZ1Eh/AiYg5LDX g8mJkOg3DjA1rIywc2k5Sjj5Pz15uoaPiTZqP94wRWEVSchZRpghWtfJBUqBHNdSu7eC AzFQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1YCnxIJk5YyIUeJnZHjiHAXXHdD1fhDaboSTBzym4tlyMruqn9 mKu/0EkRaKtVgCwZjX2Y1TuiigWsjK7gECfyML08bQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIpiPuTKu1rImXq8Ncb64T8jZbvNirw9DEW1JnKiKh0KOR4tAGmysdxbi2S/LYqa2E9il+m5Db8OawaRXM/EUo= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:29c4:: with SMTP id p187-v6mr13338590iop.299.1529417772292; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 07:16:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 2002:a4f:5945:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 07:16:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2603:300b:6:5100:1052:acc7:f9de:2b6d] In-Reply-To: References: <8ceea008-f827-580b-8ca6-4a5fcb028e83@FreeBSD.org> From: Warner Losh Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 08:16:11 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZzphlDE9jnPoE3D0qw48FbRga30 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ESXi NFSv4.1 client id is nasty To: Rick Macklem Cc: Steve Wills , "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" , "andreas.nagy@frequentis.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.26 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:16:18 -0000 On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:11 AM, Rick Macklem 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