Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 22:45:48 -0400 From: Chris Ross <cross+freebsd@distal.com> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Should intr/soft NFSv4 mounts be disabled? Message-ID: <8D9B4F06-9C39-4EE3-95E6-154608B83E29@distal.com> In-Reply-To: <YQBPR0101MB974216B2F2B1DCFF976D2065DDBD9@YQBPR0101MB9742.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> References: <YQBPR0101MB974216B2F2B1DCFF976D2065DDBD9@YQBPR0101MB9742.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jul 1, 2022, at 17:57, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> NFSv4 mounts using the "soft" and/or "intr" mount options
> have never functioned correctly. This is noted in the BUGS
> section of "man mount_nfs" and commit c0d14b0220ae
> added the generation of a warning message when such
> a mount is done. [=E2=80=A6]
> During review of commit c0d14b0220ae, emaste@ asked if
> NFSv4 mounts using "soft" and/or "intr" should actually
> be disabled, so I am now asking others for their opinion
> on this? (Doing so will cause many extant mounts in fstab(5)
> to fail.)
It sounds like failures are likely with them, so I vote they be
desupported. While I worry about systems becoming stuck
on bad NFS mounts as much as the next person, if we can=E2=80=99t
reliably get the desired safety from soft/intr, no point in
pretending.
- Chris=20=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8D9B4F06-9C39-4EE3-95E6-154608B83E29>