Date:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 09:52:10 -0500
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To:     Daire Byrne <daire@dneg.com>
Cc:     linux-nfs <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: nconnect & repeating BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION?
Message-ID: <20220110145210.GA18213@fieldses.org>
References: <CAPt2mGNF=iZkXGa93yjKQG5EsvUucun1TMhN5zM-6Gp07Bni2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220107171755.GD26961@fieldses.org>
 <CAPt2mGPtxNzigMEYXKFX0ayVc__gyJcQJVHU51CKqU+ujqh7Cg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPt2mGPtxNzigMEYXKFX0ayVc__gyJcQJVHU51CKqU+ujqh7Cg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 09:21:44AM +0000, Daire Byrne wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 17:17, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hm, doesn't each of these use up a reserved port on the client by
> > default?  I forget the details of that.  Does "noresvport" help?
> 
> Yes, I think this might be the issue. It seems like only 13/16
> connections actually initially get setup at mount time and then it
> tries to connect the full 16 once some activity to the mountpoint
> starts. My guess is that we run out of reserved ports at that point
> and continually trigger the BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION.
> 
> I can use noresvport with an NFSv3 client mount and it seems to do the
> right thing (with the server exporting "insecure), but it doesn't seem
> to have any effect on a NFSv4.2 mount (still uses ports <1024). Is
> that expected?

No.  Sounds like something's going wrong.

--b.

> Perhaps NFSv4.2 doesn't allow "insecure" mounts?
> 
> Daire