Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:36951 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751214AbaBDQa3 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:30:29 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC: nfs-utils] Common systemd unit files for nfs-utils. From: Chuck Lever In-Reply-To: <20140204162052.GA5295@fieldses.org> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:30:11 -0500 Cc: Neil Brown , Steve Dickson , Linux NFS Mailing List , Simo Sorce Message-Id: <6599648B-7F51-48AE-9CF1-6F4858833438@oracle.com> References: <20140130172451.7a354ce4@notabene.brown> <52F003A1.3060908@RedHat.com> <20140204093452.7b6d7c7d@notabene.brown> <20140204162052.GA5295@fieldses.org> To: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:20 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 09:34:52AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >> On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:01:21 -0500 Steve Dickson wrote: >>> Also how does gss-proxy come to play in all this? Maybe we >>> just use gss-proxy by default and retire rpc.svcgssd. >> >> I haven't really be following and so am only dimly aware of gss-proxy. >> It's a replacement for rpc.svcgssd - right? >> So we should get it to start in the same circumstances as rpc.svcgssd? >> >> Is there some easy test - eg something existing in the filesystem - that we >> could use to see if the kernel supports gss-proxy ? > > There's a /proc/net/rpc/use-gss-proxy file. > > (But doesn't gss-proxy have users other than nfsd?) > >> Also, I've been wondering if we could avoid the need to explicitly enable >> the gss stuff by gating it on the existence of /etc/krb5.keytab. >> Do you think that would be reasonable? > > That would be great. I hate that people have to care about these > support daemons, they should just be started automatically when they're > needed. I agree 100%. > Is /etc/krb5.keytab the best indicator? > > Simplest might be to start unconditionally and just not care if it > fails. Or is there a problem cluttering up logs with unimportant > failures? IMO gssd should be started unconditionally, and we should make it quieter if needed. -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com