Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]:56117 "EHLO mail-vc0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750931AbaIEUDM (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 16:03:12 -0400 Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hy4so13020920vcb.33 for ; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 13:03:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20140903070048.56201d1d@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <70D58138-CB00-433C-8BF8-01584E6460F0@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 16:03:11 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: nfs-utils - TCP ephemeral port exhaustion results in mount failures From: Trond Myklebust To: Chris Perl Cc: Chuck Lever , Jeff Layton , Linux NFS Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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