Hi,
util-linux 2.13 drops support for NFS mounts:
Release highlights:
------------------
mount(8) doesn't include NFS client code anymore. Don't forget to
install nfs-utils 1.1.0 or newer with /sbin/[u]mount.{nfs,nfs4}.
However, the last I can find in nfs-utils changelog about this is:
commit 99414bd3eecf93f23c378d3bb3d45bc98f364abc
Author: Neil Brown <[email protected]>
Date: Sat Jul 8 09:41:58 2006 +1000
Disable building/installing mount.nfs by default.
mount.nfs does not yet support 'user' option and some others.
To make it support this we need to make it setuid-root, and
some security isses need to be resolved before that can be done
safely.
What's the current recommendation for distributions with regard to NFS
mounting?
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 10:31:14AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> Just a few experiences with this after a week or so with the new default in
> Debian:
Here's a new one: mount doesn't pass -s (--sloppy) on to mount.nfs. This
causes odd behavior when people give all sorts of weird options, especially
(it seems) to automount. I've asked the util-linux maintainer in Debian to
fix the bug (and probably send the patch upstream), but I guess you should be
aware of the issue until it's fixed.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:17:19PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> nfs-utils-1.1.0 builds and install mount.nfs by default, and should be
> used with the new util-linux.
Just a few experiences with this after a week or so with the new default in
Debian:
- The new mount is really more picky in several aspects. Most notably, it
refuses to mount anything unless rpc.statd is running, which broke our
NFS mounting on boot. Also, it seems to be less forgiving about portmapper
registration; cfs (an encrypted filesystem based off NFS, it seems) sets
up a server on port 3049 and expects "-o port=3049,nfsvers=2" to work. The
new mount.nfs searches for a portmapper unless the udp option is also
correctly set. I'm slightly surprised at this increase in strictness,
given that I thought it was essentially the same code.
- If you forget to install it suid (we strip suid bits automatically) you
will of course break user mounts. :-)
- The umount exit status is broken, which will cause odd failures on umount
from the GNOME drive manager (basically, an empty error dialog box). Apply
the patch I posted here earlier.
I guess that's all the traps I've fell into for now; I hope they'll make it
easier to make the move for other distributions.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Sunday July 8, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> util-linux 2.13 drops support for NFS mounts:
>
> Release highlights:
> ------------------
> mount(8) doesn't include NFS client code anymore. Don't forget to
> install nfs-utils 1.1.0 or newer with /sbin/[u]mount.{nfs,nfs4}.
>
> However, the last I can find in nfs-utils changelog about this is:
>
> commit 99414bd3eecf93f23c378d3bb3d45bc98f364abc
> Author: Neil Brown <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat Jul 8 09:41:58 2006 +1000
>
> Disable building/installing mount.nfs by default.
>
> mount.nfs does not yet support 'user' option and some others.
> To make it support this we need to make it setuid-root, and
> some security isses need to be resolved before that can be done
> safely.
I wonder why you didn't find:
commit b3b111b1bd5fbc678419bf1964b6093045081139
Author: Neil Brown <[email protected]>
Date: Tue Mar 20 14:18:41 2007 +1100
Build mount.nfs by default, and install setuid
Also fix a few bugs that came up in initial testing.
>
> What's the current recommendation for distributions with regard to NFS
> mounting?
nfs-utils-1.1.0 builds and install mount.nfs by default, and should be
used with the new util-linux.
NeilBrown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:17:19PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> I wonder why you didn't find:
> commit b3b111b1bd5fbc678419bf1964b6093045081139
> Author: Neil Brown <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue Mar 20 14:18:41 2007 +1100
>
> Build mount.nfs by default, and install setuid
>
> Also fix a few bugs that came up in initial testing.
There's a simple explanation for that -- I checked the file ChangeLog, which
doesn't seem to have been updated since September, now that I look at it. I
guess you stopped updating it at some point...
> nfs-utils-1.1.0 builds and install mount.nfs by default, and should be
> used with the new util-linux.
Thanks for the clarification; we'll make the switch pretty shortly.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Monday July 9, [email protected] wrote:
>
> I just noticed this morning that "./configure --help" in the latest git
> repo still says this:
>
> --enable-mount Create mount.nfs and don't use the util-linux
> mount(8) functionality. [default=no]
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for noticing that. It is now fixed in current git.
NeilBrown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 12:20 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that we don't support mounting through a firewall.
> I'm wondering, though, how people expect it to work. Is it acceptable
> to require a few extra mount options on clients to mount successfully
> through a firewall, or should a mount with no options whatsoever always
> work in this case?
The strategy should be to make the _default_ behaviour safe. If you want
to add optimisations that need switching on/off then those may take
extra mount options.
Trond
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Chuck Lever wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that we don't support mounting through a firewall.
> I'm wondering, though, how people expect it to work. Is it acceptable
> to require a few extra mount options on clients to mount successfully
> through a firewall, or should a mount with no options whatsoever always
> work in this case?
I think I agree with Trond, although I I'm not sure what he means
by safe mount behavior... but I am of the opinion that mounts
which need to go through a firewall will require extra options
will be needed...
>
> And, does anyone have real and precise test cases to make sure we don't
> break mounting through a firewall when changes are made to the mount
> infrastructure?
We don't have explicit test for this... but I can guarantee if we
break it we'll hear about very quickly... ;-)
steved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 17:43 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 12:20 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not suggesting that we don't support mounting through a firewall.
> >> I'm wondering, though, how people expect it to work. Is it acceptable
> >> to require a few extra mount options on clients to mount successfully
> >> through a firewall, or should a mount with no options whatsoever always
> >> work in this case?
> >
> > The strategy should be to make the _default_ behaviour safe. If you want
> > to add optimisations that need switching on/off then those may take
> > extra mount options.
>
> Exactly: is mounting through a firewall an optimization, or is it
> something that users expect, by default, to work without using extra
> options?
If the user has opened the firewall for outgoing TCP connections, then
that is one of the things that I think should just work.
It doesn't need to work with maximum efficiency (so if you want to try
sending UDP portmap requests before falling back to TCP, then fine) but
opening UDP ports in the firewall or specifying extra mount options
should not be a requirement.
Trond
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs