IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] Can NFSv4.2 operations be optional on a per server file system basis?

bfields@fieldses.org Tue, 19 October 2021 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <bfields@fieldses.org>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05EE3A091F for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fieldses.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z9-zSq5Vkb9I for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fieldses.org (fieldses.org [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:2f7::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 115563A091C for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id D6EF450D7; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 14:05:11 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 fieldses.org D6EF450D7
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fieldses.org; s=default; t=1634666711; bh=Cm65P4DRTfSyRYVhiP4S0UB7dJKIPR6DLRdyuqvJcuY=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From:From; b=S63HnziCn4vlvJF32AUTNp0/skakZvgnqlc4GinXfHwetGXECJxfHR+s9C6EoyViO uqbL3cUsYmnz4z75SgEJvlSodoljI4PkQwFz3KcW5b5jEB4ThrASwRF/DT0pf515ur 5319WBxG30wkIMjhuD2kRRNkdHH9TOhKtadkALrw=
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 14:05:11 -0400
To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
Cc: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>, NFSv4 <nfsv4@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20211019180511.GA18024@fieldses.org>
References: <YQXPR0101MB0968D58C78D6E9ACBF7B8A3FDDB49@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <683B4D58-BFDF-465D-9E77-607819354EAA@gmail.com> <YQXPR0101MB0968AE1F6DD2D47EC458B7D7DDB49@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CADaq8jcN5tv7RMOY=_1BktUsWkqEmUy-w2aygiURBNZC9LBPDQ@mail.gmail.com> <YQXPR0101MB09684B8F12901E7B0A796A97DDB99@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YQXPR0101MB09684B8F12901E7B0A796A97DDB99@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
From: bfields@fieldses.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/fAe9nz1sdGUHfcdg9l-CIHIWklw>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Can NFSv4.2 operations be optional on a per server file system basis?
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:05:22 -0000

For what it's worth, I looked at the Linux knfsd code, and it looks like
it will in fact return NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP in this case.

That's probably not the only case.  E.g. (again from just looking at the
code) I suspect that's what we do you request an xattr from a filesystem
that lacks xattr support (even though GETXATTR is supported and might
succeed given a filehandle on another export).

Without testing right now, I *think* the Linux client just passes that
back to the application (probably as EOPNOTSUPP).  It doesn't give up on
ever using FALLOCATE against that server again.

--b.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email