Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk0-f54.google.com ([209.85.213.54]:46888 "EHLO mail-vk0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754583AbeBWT2F (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:28:05 -0500 Received: by mail-vk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id x125so6104893vkc.13 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 11:28:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1519412975.8738.3.camel@primarydata.com> References: <20180222192806.67911-1-kolga@netapp.com> <034fb5f1-eba5-030b-aad2-6ac5e87f2066@RedHat.com> <6e314995-964f-e70d-cc45-fc1716b4ec81@RedHat.com> <1519412975.8738.3.camel@primarydata.com> From: Olga Kornievskaia Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:28:03 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] NFS guard against incorrect vers inputs from nfs-utils To: Trond Myklebust Cc: SteveD redhat , "anna.schumaker@netapp.com" , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "kolga@netapp.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 13:45 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> >> On 02/23/2018 12:05 PM, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Steve Dickson >> > wrote: >> > > Hey Olga, >> > > >> > > On 02/22/2018 02:28 PM, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: >> > > > It is possible that userland can pass to the kernel mismatching >> > > > inputs for the minorversion. like vers=4.1,minorversion=0. >> > > > Instead >> > > > of making the kernel responposible for 'choosing' the >> > > > minorversion, >> > > > make the userland always responsible for not sending a >> > > > mismatch. >> > > >> > > I'm thinking this is probably more of mount problem... >> > >> > Yes the problem is a broken user land sending incorrect arguments >> > but >> > I still think the kernel needs to do sanity checking on arguments >> > to >> > prevent this from happening again. >> > >> > > mount -t nfs4 -o minorversion=0 server:/export /mnt >> > > >> > > shouldn't this be a v4.0 mount instead of a 4.2 mount? >> > >> > Yes I would think this should create a v4.0 mount. >> >> Way back when... there was some talk about deprecating >> minorversion= flag... Since it is broken, maybe this is >> a good time to do it? >> >> Thoughts? > > I've never liked the separate v4-only 'minorversion' keyword, which is > why I introduced the 'version=4.x' format. My preference is therefore > that we continue to deprecate use of 'minorversion' with a view to > killing it off completely. It all seems like a good idea except I wonder how widely used and relied on "minorversion" option is. Steve you might have a good idea about it. > > -- > Trond Myklebust > Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData > trond.myklebust@primarydata.com