Return-Path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:33143 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751004AbbJ1TdQ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:33:16 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Subject: Re: GSSD warning with proto=rdma From: Chuck Lever In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:33:13 -0400 Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List Message-Id: <40E7CBBC-565F-41D7-BC3D-069FFD8B0BBB@oracle.com> References: <216A83C3-D724-49C7-A64B-3471CF981AA3@oracle.com> To: Trond Myklebust Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > On Oct 28, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: >> Hi- >> >> I’m beginning to try Kerberos with NFS/RDMA. I get this complaint >> from GSSD: >> >> Oct 28 13:10:02 manet rpc.gssd[2549]: WARNING: unrecognized >> protocol, 'rdma', requested for connection to server >> klimt-ib.1015granger.net for user with uid 0 >> >> Should I change the kernel NFS client to tell GSSD it’s using >> TCP, or should I change GSSD to recognize RDMA as another form >> of TCP? >> > > gssd expects to be able to connect to the IP address that we pass in > the upcall. If we can guarantee that IP address can always be resolved > in a TCP connection attempt, then let's lie, and call it TCP. NFS/RDMA still requires IPoIB to provide IP addresses that resolve to GUIDs, so I think we can make that guarantee. Still, do you prefer the kernel to lie, or for GSSD to lie? Changing GSSD might be more future-proof. —- Chuck Lever