From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [RFC] new client gssd upcall Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:06:22 -0400 Message-ID: <1213895182.7120.13.camel@localhost> References: <1213397442-15611-1-git-send-email-bfields@citi.umich.edu> <20080616102859.66fa6a34@tleilax.poochiereds.net> <20080617213622.GA5849@fieldses.org> <1213739969.7288.90.camel@localhost> <485A7D2D.4060206@citi.umich.edu> <20080619114929.5c211ec9@tleilax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Olga Kornievskaia , "J. Bruce Fields" , kwc@citi.umich.edu, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:44112 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759437AbYFSRKZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:10:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080619114929.5c211ec9-RtJpwOs3+0O+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 11:49 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Because it's less code that we have to maintain. rpc_pipefs certainly works > (and works fairly well), but we have so many upcall mechanisms in the > kernel already. keyctl also has some nice features (automated cache > timeouts, granular security, etc), and was designed with this sort of use > in mind. > > I'm not saying that we absolutely need to scrap rpc_pipefs, but considering > alternatives may mean less work for us all in the long run. Talk about scrapping rpc_pipefs is premature, to say the least: I have yet to see a plan for replacing the idmapd upcall. I have yet to see working code that replaces the gss upcall and that works correctly in a non-blocking environment. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com www.netapp.com