From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Sat May 15 12:11:44 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2616443F6 for ; Sat, 15 May 2021 12:11:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Fj44v2Hj5z4VSs; Sat, 15 May 2021 12:11:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 14FCBfUT085715; Sat, 15 May 2021 05:11:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 14FCBfjp085714; Sat, 15 May 2021 05:11:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202105151211.14FCBfjp085714@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: RFC: changing the default NFSv4 minor version? In-Reply-To: To: Rick Macklem Date: Sat, 15 May 2021 05:11:41 -0700 (PDT) CC: "Rodney W. Grimes" , Daniel Ebdrup Jensen , "freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Fj44v2Hj5z4VSs X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has no SPF policy when checking 69.59.192.140) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.50 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.95)[-0.949]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dnsmgr.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; SPAMHAUS_ZRD(0.00)[69.59.192.140:from:127.0.2.255]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RBL_DBL_DONT_QUERY_IPS(0.00)[69.59.192.140:from]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.45)[-0.454]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-current]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 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: Sat, 15 May 2021 12:11:44 -0000 > Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > [stuff snipped] > >Daniel Ebdrup Jensen wrote: > >> Hi Rick, > >> > >> If I understand your plans correctly, you're not going to be making > >> it so that minorversion=N complains? > > > >Ah, I think that if you specify a minorversion and the server > >does not support that minorversion it SHOULD complain. > Yes. The mount attempt currently fails with "minor version not supported" > when the minor version is not supported by the server. > My plan would not change this when "minorversion=N" is specified. > > > Only > >if when a minorversion has NOT been specified should it silently > >use the highest common version. > Yes, that's my plan. > > >> > >> In that case, I don't quite understand how it can be a POLA > >> violation, since presumably it'll fall back to NFSv4.0 if that's > >> the only thing that's supported by ntpd on some other system. > > > >Ignoring the ntpd typo, I think ricks concern on POLA is that currently > >in FreeBSD if you do NOT specify any minor version you get v4.0 and > >only v4.0 even if both sides support v4.2, so with his change things > >are suddenly going to change, that may astonish some. > Yes. > > >> > >> At any rate, I'm all for it since I'm already using NFSv4.2. :) > > > >I support this change with the caveats that it only occurs if the > >minorversion is unspecified and this same negotiation logic is > >applied to both server and client. (Ie, if I spec a minorversion > >on the server it is no longer free to negotiate any other version, > >IE if I spec 1 it should *NOT* drop to 0. It may mean minorversion > >becomes minorversions or highestminor? So that I can make a > >server that allows minor={0,1} or even {1,2}, ie I in that second > >case I want it to NOT use a minor=0 mount. > The server end is passive. It either supports the minor version specified > in the RPC by the client and performs the RPC or it replies NFS4ERR_MINOR_VERSION_MISMATCH if it does not support it. > The FreeBSD server already has sysctls: > vfs.nfsd.server_min_minorversion4 > vfs.nfsd.server_max_minorversion4 > that allows a sysadmin to limit the minor versions supported. > > I think this satisfies your server requirement? Yes, it certainly does. > rick > > Yours, > > Daniel Ebdrup Jensen > Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org