Hi,
using kernel 2.6.8rc3 and util-linux-2.12a, I ran into those "mount
version older than kernel" messages, which were discussed here for the
2.6.4 kernel before. Patching inode.c, I can see that NFS_MOUNT_VERSION
is 6, while data->version is 4. (The only mount at all that does not
complain is the one done by nfsroot (of course) :-))
Just a stupid question: why does the nfsmount.h from the kernel source
define NFS_MOUNT_VERSION 6? Shouldn't this number match the latest nfs
version, i.e., 4? I've never heard of nfs v6 yet :-)
Or is the meaning of NFS_MOUNT_VERSION different?
Would it be safe to patch nfsmount.h and set the number to 4 for my
own kernel to get rid of this warning, or could that break sth. else?
It just fills my logs and I want to get rid of it...
cu,
Frank
--
Dipl.-Inform. Frank Steiner Web: http://www.bio.ifi.lmu.de/~steiner/
Lehrstuhl f. Bioinformatik Mail: http://www.bio.ifi.lmu.de/~steiner/m/
LMU, Amalienstr. 17 Phone: +49 89 2180-4049
80333 Muenchen, Germany Fax: +49 89 2180-99-4049
* Rekursion kann man erst verstehen, wenn man Rekursion verstanden hat. *
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. http://www.ostg.com
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
P=E5 on , 04/08/2004 klokka 06:51, skreiv Olaf Kirch:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 03:25:23PM +0200, Frank Steiner wrote:
> > I see. But then it looks like a bug to me that the code in the inode.c
> > is comparing the "NFS version" (4, in data->version) against the
> > "NFS kernel mount struct" (6, in NFS_MOUNT_VERSION). That doesn't
> > make sense, does it?
>=20
> data->version _is_ the API version. Your mount binary currently
> uses API version 4. The kernel supports up to API version 6
> (which add NFSv4 support).
Nope. NFSv4 uses an entirely separate mount structure.
For the NFSv2/v3 mount structure, API version 5 adds RPCSEC_GSS the
secure RPC model. API version 6 adds support for passing security
context information down for use by LSM/SELinux/...
Cheers,
Trond
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. http://www.ostg.com
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:50:09PM +0200, Frank Steiner wrote:
> Just a stupid question: why does the nfsmount.h from the kernel source
> define NFS_MOUNT_VERSION 6? Shouldn't this number match the latest nfs
> version, i.e., 4? I've never heard of nfs v6 yet :-)
> Or is the meaning of NFS_MOUNT_VERSION different?
That's the version of the NFS kernel mount struct, and is
absolutely unrelated to the NFS version (except that both
grow monotonically over time).
> Would it be safe to patch nfsmount.h and set the number to 4 for my
> own kernel to get rid of this warning, or could that break sth. else?
> It just fills my logs and I want to get rid of it...
Our kernel has a patch to silence that warning for versions < 3.
But I wouldn't mind if it was nixed entirely.
Olaf
--
Olaf Kirch | The Hardware Gods hate me.
[email protected] |
---------------+
Olaf Kirch wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:50:09PM +0200, Frank Steiner wrote:
>
>>Just a stupid question: why does the nfsmount.h from the kernel source
>>define NFS_MOUNT_VERSION 6? Shouldn't this number match the latest nfs
>>version, i.e., 4? I've never heard of nfs v6 yet :-)
>>Or is the meaning of NFS_MOUNT_VERSION different?
>
>
> That's the version of the NFS kernel mount struct, and is
> absolutely unrelated to the NFS version (except that both
> grow monotonically over time).
I see. But then it looks like a bug to me that the code in the inode.c
is comparing the "NFS version" (4, in data->version) against the
"NFS kernel mount struct" (6, in NFS_MOUNT_VERSION). That doesn't
make sense, does it?
I added this to inode.c
if (data->version != NFS_MOUNT_VERSION) {
printk("nfs warning: mount version %s than kernel\n",
data->version < NFS_MOUNT_VERSION ? "older" : "newer");
+ printk("data version: %d\n",data->version);
+ printk("NFS_MOUNT_VERSION: %d\n",NFS_MOUNT_VERSION);
and got this result:
Aug 4 14:33:50 riemann kernel: nfs warning: mmmount version older than kernel
Aug 4 14:33:50 riemann kernel: data version: 4
Aug 4 14:33:50 riemann kernel: NFS_MOUNT_VERSION: 6
cu,
Frank
--
Dipl.-Inform. Frank Steiner Web: http://www.bio.ifi.lmu.de/~steiner/
Lehrstuhl f. Bioinformatik Mail: http://www.bio.ifi.lmu.de/~steiner/m/
LMU, Amalienstr. 17 Phone: +49 89 2180-4049
80333 Muenchen, Germany Fax: +49 89 2180-99-4049
* Rekursion kann man erst verstehen, wenn man Rekursion verstanden hat. *
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. http://www.ostg.com
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 03:25:23PM +0200, Frank Steiner wrote:
> I see. But then it looks like a bug to me that the code in the inode.c
> is comparing the "NFS version" (4, in data->version) against the
> "NFS kernel mount struct" (6, in NFS_MOUNT_VERSION). That doesn't
> make sense, does it?
data->version _is_ the API version. Your mount binary currently
uses API version 4. The kernel supports up to API version 6
(which add NFSv4 support).
Olaf
--
Olaf Kirch | The Hardware Gods hate me.
[email protected] |
---------------+
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. http://www.ostg.com
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs