From: Jan Sanders Subject: Re: NFS: unknown mount option: grpid Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:34:35 +0200 Message-ID: <48034F5B.7060304@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> References: <47FE0C42.6030900@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> <56D1CF7A-BB26-4D07-B47D-9D43D55A1B8F@oracle.com> <47FE2C2D.1070703@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: NFS list , Linux NFSv4 mailing list To: Chuck Lever Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org List-ID: Chuck Lever wrote: > On Apr 10, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Peter Staubach wrote: > >> Chuck Lever wrote: >> >>> Hi Jan- >>> >>> On Apr 10, 2008, at 8:46 AM, Jan Sanders wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I have come across a little NFS problem. >>>> >>>> My nfs client, a Ubuntu-Hardy machine with nfs-common-1.1.2 tries to >>>> mount a directory but fails complaining >>>> >>>> Apr 10 12:18:34 sorpe kernel: [ 490.911951]NFS: unknown mount >>>> option: grpid >>>> >>>> The mount options are rw,nosuid,grpid. The mount is done by >>>> autofs but >>>> trying to mount the directory usdin the same options rw,nosuid,grpid >>>> results in the same error. >>>> I checked using strace that the mount call was indeed done using >>>> grpid. >>>> The mount call returns with EINVAL invalis argument. >>>> >>>> From strace: >>>> mount("nfs-server:/volumes/www", "/vol/www", "nfs", MS_NOSUID, >>>> "grpid,addr=192.168.0.123") = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument) >>>> >>>> >>> grpid isn't a valid NFS mount option; it's valid only for xfs and >>> ext2/3, according to mount(8). >>> >>> I can't explain why the earlier version of mount.nfs didn't >>> complain about it. >>> >>> >>> >> I thought that the NFS mount command was supposed to ignore >> mount options that it didn't understand. It could perhaps >> give a warning message, but should mount anyway. >> >> I thought that this behavior was useful for automounter >> applications which have to be able to share maps in a >> heterogeneous environment. >> > > > Well, it does ignore legacy NFS mount options that are no longer > supported. > > However, I was not aware of a requirement for NFS mount to ignore all > options it doesn't understand. > > It's easy enough to add, I suppose. Community opinion? Needless to say that I would opine for it :-D cheers Jan S. tnx for your help so far btw!