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;
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:13:29 -0400
From:   Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <schumakeranna@gmail.com>
Cc:     Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@oracle.com>, Steve Dickson <steved@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: server-to-server copy by default
Message-ID: <20211021141329.GC25711@fieldses.org>
References: <20211020155421.GC597@fieldses.org>
 <CAN-5tyHuq3wmU1EThrfqv7Mq+F5o0BXXdkAnGXch_sYakv=eqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <0492823C-5F90-494E-8770-D0EC14130846@oracle.com>
 <20211020181512.GE597@fieldses.org>
 <EC5F0B99-7866-4AA6-BF2F-AB1A93C623DF@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <EC5F0B99-7866-4AA6-BF2F-AB1A93C623DF@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 07:04:53PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> Unprivileged mounting seems like a different question to me.
> Related, possibly, but not the same. I'd rather leave that
> discussion to another thread.

Well, I'd be curious if client maintainers have any thoughts.

The NFS client still disallows unprivileged mounts, right?  Is it
something you think could be supported, and if so, do you have an idea
what's left to do?

Trond, I remember asking you about unprivileged mounts at a bakeathon a
few years ago, and at the time you seemed to think it'd be a reasonable
thing to do eventually, and the one obstacle you mentioned was that the
client wasn't capable of maintaining separate state in different
namespaces.  That's fixed, isn't it?

--b.