From nobody Sat Jul 2 02:45:48 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@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 371AF87A470 for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2022 02:46:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cross+freebsd@distal.com) Received: from relay.wiredblade.com (relay.wiredblade.com [168.235.105.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4LZbzV5SL8z3CbM; Sat, 2 Jul 2022 02:45:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cross+freebsd@distal.com) Received: from mail.distal.com (pool-108-45-159-88.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.159.88]) by relay.wiredblade.com with ESMTPSA (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256) ; Sat, 2 Jul 2022 02:45:50 +0000 Received: from smtpclient.apple ( [2001:470:e24c:200:ac1a:c41f:4234:6f28]) by tristain.distal.com (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id d6e01b61 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO); Fri, 1 Jul 2022 22:45:49 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-Id: Filesystems List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-fs List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\)) Subject: Re: RFC: Should intr/soft NFSv4 mounts be disabled? From: Chris Ross In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 22:45:48 -0400 Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems , Ed Maste , Gleb Smirnoff Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8D9B4F06-9C39-4EE3-95E6-154608B83E29@distal.com> References: To: Rick Macklem X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4LZbzV5SL8z3CbM X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of cross@distal.com designates 168.235.105.136 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=cross@distal.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.18 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a:relay.dynu.com]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[distal.com]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.98)[0.975]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.991]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-fs]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:3842, ipnet:168.235.104.0/22, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[freebsd]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[108.45.159.88:received] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N > On Jul 1, 2022, at 17:57, Rick Macklem 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=