Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
To:     guy keren <guy@vastdata.com>, linux-nfs <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: nfs4.1 and nconnect - is this supported?
Thread-Topic: nfs4.1 and nconnect - is this supported?
Thread-Index: AQHXeXufkrmYpSiYM0awZfEk2w5O0atEG6+l
Date:   Thu, 15 Jul 2021 14:43:45 +0000
Message-ID: <YQXPR0101MB09687CF25C779E1E6ECEFF5ADD129@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <9d726e22-8c47-41ac-727b-3a27a9919fc6@vastdata.com>
In-Reply-To: <9d726e22-8c47-41ac-727b-3a27a9919fc6@vastdata.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: =?iso-8859-1?Q?NQaaiJ5bMW2lQCAFn+NVXvjyrRz+1pfHlUIWXRiL2iGBJBJlTwl8PQkxJh?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hk6EGb1DtyrSKL43Igt3vRB4mS+tRG0CW/3Vx2EpRwQXAMyC0sVTfzD+UB?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?xYkKKOkJTv2gLsjzBd0/ZxFL0+F/bRheTZRBg9EGRauYC1J25KohQNpDuo?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?lUhA1c6kn0DjxbvXOOg/Fc8sLfmG3j+AGBzRfSREtGPa7x+O3iYtCpFXJ1?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?r42I+Pg7on3m/DYvPdzz2ru/YkewXKbTVQFQq8VnwI2bBDNwm15uwqbouH?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?JiIQW612zR3Kz3VIwnEuLtYHp7P9ycyCfvAynBHT6EQjm5mk06Sg13OMHX?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Q+pCNFuRogt3KBhY7Am8RtfjlsuSGZ+pa5eU6Fr4m614Pza6FrIy93ezef?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?1/jYRCJpBqckU3Gm+68gOjXDs6EwlJSqjPSVz1LeRk/X/NW1VQkoNvWjWX?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?8138AhDjVu8Qj6PpKSQWnfkCKetC/SPzcbmSSyOHsOJ1oODOGLVba8W/RD?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?VSo7FmCJfrpkekzilLghmmWz0RZQhnW9Hpl5MpUQKgidOUS0Wfcyt+DqBm?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?XVlW4lAKdspyOyNv6cUe0Q+NHwmGVMuG0zV3Ytsrj6xGProiZRbeZS7Fi4?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Yf3JzvsY7ZKJk2GIMdfEhUsvUo0un07w5SDTdvkoym0aD4pJISKCkuh6B/?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?roI9josDDO6FVwhZWsUAtH880UA2bktOb4p+L3AuxFx9M+1O2CVcJAMIFO?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?ZZAcUD/CZ8MZr63LeIHkxAiHhisITfpyqyrrGMgMoJ75i0+xV7cayDvCYq?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?emWBmmO2gIgj6QopJ7pQz3HroLiaLkjVnWDvrp8PBWmUEi2gRHP1ROkCAo?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?I2zikBccGYtCu2fcwuKHGyYopjugvYpaXwa6/pKGmwtC2qpBbS3+gWBLqN?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?rjYQYM+ovZXgmkIHKFyIaf+lJK9RVZ4zqUuDBWyT/YNXnHyGNS0Tlmh18b?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?kG4YoGzuzsH3sNGy6DmlKoZrAuUV9i8KPgJ98rBDdOtO6n3zpvLne/pAis?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?iklmZXlHp6XaoyLmfteYIc3gwXnkSywFYEYeGoH1eME+zZJb27dXCk3cdg?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?3EKSe9HmFT86WYurOcuwMiFklxSJMKCCYpMf27HXQb0obx35efbyfEcn7q?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?WOVt28VrRFOv/1Wr/9vWLZRMY3P1FAJNj0PwirsQgyEz9m1oAmsGqudqrl?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?2kAg1udwZ4fqhm2omE+pHJWN4KK62pgY5EsvB9Gf4N7CV+9I4tZoKJedbr?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?1oH7cROL5Y6TQjdeQNtLwMXTfGorBqge0ofkCTKL/5wKm2I2SDhSEAJ+2U?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?jlWrH2LmJJfDwjLkF/VrLlvSE1XAiXhgcdYWEzcradKeSfpFAQOrU=3D?=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: uoguelph.ca
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7149d44d-497d-41f1-ca47-08d9479ef2b3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Jul 2021 14:43:45.0950
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: be62a12b-2cad-49a1-a5fa-85f4f3156a7d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: KQTYALEscI6Nr5E24+/KTjziOn6OAOBLoCnOfDzCg6s5YmESXSyCd5ZfeMelx/QSYFNFpFPzJHtzB17x4xPM0g==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: QB1PR01MB3122
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org

guy keren <guy@vastdata.com> wrote:=0A=
>hi,=0A=
>=0A=
>i wonder if the linux client's nfs nconnect feature was designed to=0A=
>support NFS4.1 (or higher) versions? according to our experimentation,=0A=
>the linux client seems to just alternate messages between the multiple=0A=
>RPC/TCP connections, and does not seem to adhere to the NFS 4.1 protocol=
=0A=
>requirement, that when using multiple connections, the client needs to=0A=
>use BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION when trying to user a 2nd connection with the=0A=
>same NFS4.1 session.=0A=
>=0A=
>was this done on purpose? or is this configuration not supported by=0A=
>linux client's 'nconnect'? or am i missing something?=0A=
Yep, you're missing something.=0A=
=0A=
Snippet from RFC 5661 pg. 43:=0A=
   If the client specifies no state=0A=
   protection (Section 18.35) when the session is created, then when=0A=
   SEQUENCE is transmitted on a different connection, the connection is=0A=
   automatically associated with the fore channel of the session=0A=
   specified in the SEQUENCE operation.=0A=
=0A=
As such, BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION is only required to associate the=0A=
backchannel to the connection.=0A=
=0A=
rick=0A=
=0A=
thanks,=0A=
--guy=0A=