Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57744 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754756AbdGJSfM (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:35:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:35:04 +0100 From: Stefan Hajnoczi To: Steve Dickson Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton , Abbas Naderi Subject: Re: [PATCH nfs-utils v2 05/12] getport: recognize "vsock" netid Message-ID: <20170710183504.GX14195@stefanha-x1.localdomain> References: <20170630132120.31578-1-stefanha@redhat.com> <20170630132120.31578-6-stefanha@redhat.com> <6a9210af-b1e3-c768-2be8-8c6f761e82d0@RedHat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aSOv3uy5xJSQbCk1" In-Reply-To: <6a9210af-b1e3-c768-2be8-8c6f761e82d0@RedHat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --aSOv3uy5xJSQbCk1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:01:13AM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > On 06/30/2017 09:21 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > Neither libtirpc nor getprotobyname(3) know about AF_VSOCK. For similar > > reasons as for "rdma"/"rmda6", translate "vsock" manually in getport.c. > >=20 > > It is now possible to mount a file system from the host (hypervisor) > > over AF_VSOCK like this: > >=20 > > (guest)$ mount.nfs 2:/export /mnt -v -o clientaddr=3D3,proto=3Dvsock > >=20 > > The VM's cid address is 3 and the hypervisor is 2. > So this is how vsocks are going to look...=20 > There is not going to be a way to lookup an vsock address? > Since the format of the clientaddr parameter shouldn't > that be documented in the man page? AF_VSOCK does not have name resolution. The scope of the CID addresses is just the hypervisor that the VMs are running on. Inter-VM communication is not allowed. The virtualization software has the CIDs so there's not much use for name resolution. > I guess a general question, is this new mount type > documented anywhere?=20 Thanks for pointing this out. I'll update the man pages in the next revision of this patch series. --aSOv3uy5xJSQbCk1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJZY8jYAAoJEJykq7OBq3PIcHEH/Ax7EnlfiOAoURlvtYNKxMvT B4K240FD8OtSz4gL84xyul68y++kHwO9tFQOv65DOm72VJR05yN/fX8rxHdDqZqW 7OcseUaKWTvBSJGRR/ZfoARmMDAkSqO+SgHmsHrPlpB9cm8HadCFX5R6VWg+9oVQ CUUvHGlYV6yXc1l5MYLKYacuEvfMZTc527CsilB4SnX9mEH5kMclz4MjzBL8zxSn edV8XIP/XwRqcwSyVO1y9/LSEtUFg+1VaHyFjCfTtbT4t47AOeD0mWixK7vTluia 6rJ5HJ9MglAJXUXCV5NCHZ18cS9uDuOPbiI2FeLeuwK2yj2suBQZBGRcVPRtbZc= =wMfZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aSOv3uy5xJSQbCk1--