Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:37055 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758867Ab3BGROB (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:14:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:14:00 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Chuck Lever Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Refactor nfsd4_do_encode_secinfo() Message-ID: <20130207171400.GO3222@fieldses.org> References: <20130201220308.13518.82164.stgit@seurat.1015granger.net> <20130207150213.GC3222@fieldses.org> <87316F41-4E5E-473C-A372-0AFC6721A355@oracle.com> <20130207162308.GI3222@fieldses.org> <20130207165509.GM3222@fieldses.org> <436D6F2C-E520-4375-A518-2E55031E70F7@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 12:12:24PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: > > I've thought a little about that. There is already a logged warning if a gssd upcall times out. But it's hard to tell inside the kernel why a module doesn't load. These all look pretty much the same to the RPC layer: > > > > - module is blacklisted or not installed? > > - GSS support wasn't built? > > - filesystem corruption? > > - export specifies a security flavor the RPC client doesn't recognize? > > > > I suppose I could add something here, but I wonder about the false alarms. > > How about this: > > "Warning: export specifies a security flavor that isn't supported" Sounds fine. With a guard so we just say it once. Bonus if we could say which export or which flavor? --b.