Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]:44080 "EHLO mail-ie0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751481AbaIEVXw convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 17:23:52 -0400 Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id at20so14947417iec.33 for ; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 14:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: nfs-utils - TCP ephemeral port exhaustion results in mount failures From: Weston Andros Adamson In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 17:23:49 -0400 Cc: Trond Myklebust , Chuck Lever , Jeffrey Layton , linux-nfs list Message-Id: <44C76FD6-5333-402B-9DA4-D38065AAA15F@primarydata.com> References: <20140903070048.56201d1d@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <70D58138-CB00-433C-8BF8-01584E6460F0@oracle.com> To: Chris Perl Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Do these patches require one another? What happens if I have a patched nfs-utils, but not a patched kernel or the other way around? -dros On Sep 5, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Chris Perl wrote: > It looks like they may have come through after all, unfortunately I > already sent them again. Apologies for the spam. > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Chris Perl wrote: >> I tried to send them to the list, but I guess they didn't come through >> because my sender was set to chris.perl@gmail.com, but I ran `git >> send-email' from work, so the smtp sender ip wouldn't authorized. >> >> I'll figure out a way to send them now. >> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Trond Myklebust >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Chris Perl wrote: >>>> I just submitted two patches, one for nfs-utils and one for linux-nfs. >>>> >>>> As I said in my previous email, the patch to nfs-utils was enough to >>>> get us farther along, but we failed inside mount(2) with EIO (with a >>>> decidedly more confusing error message). >>>> >>>> So, I've also submitted a patch for the rpc code in the kernel that >>>> also avoids bind when asking for a random ephemeral port. I've tested >>>> the combination of these two patches with my system while in the >>>> situation I originally outlined. I can continue to successfully mount >>>> NFS filesystems using both of these patches. >>>> >>>> I don't particularly love the kernel patch, as it makes `xs_bind' not >>>> actually bind in all circumstances, which seems confusing. However, I >>>> thought trying to rework things in a larger way would cause more >>>> issues given that I'm not very familiar with this code. If everyone >>>> hates it, I can try something else. >>> >>> To whom did you submit these patches? I don't see anything in the >>> linux-nfs mailing list. >>> >>> -- >>> Trond Myklebust >>> >>> Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData >>> >>> trond.myklebust@primarydata.com > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html