Re: knfsd and FS_REQUIRES_DEV

From: Neil Brown (neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au)
Date: Tue Dec 11 2001 - 20:21:28 EST


On Tuesday December 11, sopwith@redhat.com wrote:
> I'm not worried about problems where files mysteriously disappear due to
> me screwing up inode numbers in my code, only about causing kernel panics
> or other Bad Things in the server's kernel. If I were to remove the
> FS_REQUIRES_DEV check (or, more likely, submit a patch adding an nfsd
> module option to remove the check...), what are the worst things that
> could theoretically and realistically happen?

If you just removed the check, the worst that would happen is that
after a server reboot you have to remount everything on your clients.

If you submit a patch to make it an option, the worst that can happen
is that I jump on you (but I'm not a good long jumper, so you are
pretty safe).

I plan to make a change to knfsd in the near future so that you can
have an option like:
   fs=27
in /etc/exports and the the kernel puts the magic number "27" in the
filehandle instead of the device number. Then as long as you export
each filesystem with a unique and consistant fs number, you won't need
to worry about the instability of device numbers.

NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:22 EST