Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECDEC433EF for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 20:02:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241992AbiAKUCU (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 15:02:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50878 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241741AbiAKUCU (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 15:02:20 -0500 Received: from fieldses.org (fieldses.org [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:2f7::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 218DFC06173F for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 12:02:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id BCBEF70C2; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 15:02:19 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 fieldses.org BCBEF70C2 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fieldses.org; s=default; t=1641931339; bh=DOrGvmfL2kXJ+h9oD1kxavjld5dzs+iGLopav/Cn2No=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cjpM66NI7u4JfRjdaqp9OD+UGVwF8ZB0NbjvuPb1PTK3VF7G2NILsoGFWKg2G779P Vpd/BX7O+piccdFRSKS/+5jW0q9xmUL9KkJ9jnxCOwqCyfoAUQ97Cp6E5sL/WKHQbg /COqurPLZ8I1FAS5GOTEgCp9IhiocK6VVcMzUw74= Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 15:02:19 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Richard Weinberger Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, luis.turcitu@appsbroker.com, chris.chilvers@appsbroker.com, david.young@appsbroker.com, daire@dneg.com, david.oberhollenzer@sigma-star.at, david@sigma-star.at, trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com, anna.schumaker@netapp.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Dealing with NFS re-export and cross mounts Message-ID: <20220111200219.GE4035@fieldses.org> References: <20220110184419.27665-1-richard@nod.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20220110184419.27665-1-richard@nod.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 07:44:16PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Currently when re-exporting a NFS share the NFS cross mount feature does > not work [0]. > This RFC patch series outlines an approach to address the problem. > > Crossing mounts does not work for two reasons: > > 1. As soon the NFS client (on the re-exporting server) sees a different > filesystem id, it installs an automount. That way the other filesystem > will be mounted automatically when someone enters the directory. > But the cross mount logic of KNFS does not know about automount. > The three patches in this series address the problem and teach both KNFSD > and the exportfs logic of NFS to deal with automount. > > 2. When KNFSD detects crossing of a mount point, it asks rpc.mountd to install > a new export for the target mount point. Beside of authentication rpc.mountd > also has to find a filesystem id for the new export. Is the to be exported > filesystem a NFS share, rpc.mountd cannot derive a filesystem id from it and > refuses to export. In the logs you’ll see error such as: > mountd: Cannot export /srv/nfs/vol0, possibly unsupported filesystem or fsid= required > To deal with that I changed rpc.mountd to use an arbitrary fsid. > Since this is a gross hack we need to agree on an approach to derive filesystem > ids for NFS mounts. > > rpc.mountd could: > a) re-use the fsid from the original NFS server. > Beside of requesting this information, the problem with that approach is > that the original fsid might conflict with an existing export. > b) derive the fsid from stat->st_dev. > c) allocate a free fsid. > > One use case to consider is load balancing. When multiple NFS servers re-export > a NFS mount, they need to use the same fsid for crossed mounts. > So I'm a little puzzled which approach is best. What do you think? > > Known issues: > - Only tested with NFSv3 (both server and client) so far. > > [0] https://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=161653016627277&w=2 v4 testing would definitely be good, that's the case we'll care most about. --b.