Re: problems with nfsd (due to RPCSEC_GSS changes?)

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 04:18:04PM -0800, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:08:50AM -0500, Derek Taylor wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> > >Ultimately, I had to add NFS_LEGACYRPC in order to get a working nfsd.
> > >Looks like there may be a problem with the new code that was added as
> > >part of RPCSEC_GSS support.  Note that I did not enable KGSSAPI in my
> > >kernel as I have no need for it.
> > 
> > It sounds like you were bitten by the behavior documented in paragraph
> > two of the commit log:
> >      The NFS code currently contains support for both the new RPC
> >      implementation and the older legacy implementation inherited
> >      from the original NFS codebase. The default is to use the new
> >      implementation - add the NFS_LEGACYRPC option to fall back to
> >      the old code. When I merge this support back to RELENG_7, I
> >      will probably change this so that users have to 'opt in' to
> >      get the new code.
> 
> My reading of the commit log was that the new code would work out of
> the box, and that NFS_LEGACYRPC was for unforeseen problems (just like
> the one I ran into).  I expected the new RPC implementation to work
> without any change to kernel conf or anything else.
> 
> I don't feel any expected brokenness was documented in that paragraph.

For what it's worth, I made a similar transition and the new RPC code
paniced my NFS client.   At least, I believe that was the cause as the
panic has been removed by reverting back to the old RPC code.

I think this is probably worth a HEADS UP or an entry in UPDATING.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG