Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:36186 "EHLO mail-ob0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751423AbbJ1UQf convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:16:35 -0400 Received: by obcqt19 with SMTP id qt19so16450158obc.3 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:16:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <40E7CBBC-565F-41D7-BC3D-069FFD8B0BBB@oracle.com> References: <216A83C3-D724-49C7-A64B-3471CF981AA3@oracle.com> <40E7CBBC-565F-41D7-BC3D-069FFD8B0BBB@oracle.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:16:34 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GSSD warning with proto=rdma From: Trond Myklebust To: Chuck Lever Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: > >> 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. OK.