Subject: Re: [nfsv4] CREATE_SESSION backchannel question
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <[email-masked]>
To: "Matt W. Benjamin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: nfsv4 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:26:01 -0400
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:07:33AM -0400, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> I wondered a bit about the server's backchannel preferences in
> CREATE_SESSION, for example, if the server implementation would prefer
> (or even require) a dedicated backchannel.  The server can accept or
> reject a client request to use the current connection as a forechannel
> and backchannel.

I'd never actually noticed that was allowed!

> If the server clears the backchannel flag, or the
> client did not set it, can the server expect that the client will
> offer a backchannel in a subsequent BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION (under its
> obligations under 2.9.2, item 3).

I don't think the existing Linux client is prepared to handle that; more
likely telling it that the backchannel wasn't set up will cause it to
destroy the client and try to create a new one, resulting in an infinite
loop....  (But I haven't tested that, much less other clients.)

It seems like mildly antisocial behavior on the part of the server, but
I can believe it would be convenient to not have to handle the
shared-connection case, and probably wouldn't be difficult to handle on
the client.

--b.