linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nfs: Don't try mounting device as nfs root unless type fully matches

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+1xoqdQPi53GYr_Q6RtECJJcrz0TVVp4uNQX6jkfbQWQSNF7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:21:57 +0200
From:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To:	Jim Rees <rees@...ch.edu>
Cc:	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, linux@...ik.name,
	Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, penberg@...nel.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs: Don't try mounting device as nfs root unless type
 fully matches

ping? I saw that this one didn't get pulled into the tree.

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 13:12 -0500, Jim Rees wrote:
>> Chuck Lever wrote:
>>
>>   On Jan 7, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>
>>   > Currently, we'll try mounting any device who's major device number is
>>   > UNNAMED_MAJOR as NFS root. This would happen for non-NFS devices as well (such
>>   > as 9p devices) but it wouldn't cause any issues since mounting the device
>>   > as NFS would fail quickly and the code proceeded to doing the proper mount:
>>   >
>>   >   [  101.522716] VFS: Unable to mount root fs via NFS, trying floppy.
>>   >   [  101.534499] VFS: Mounted root (9p filesystem) on device 0:18.
>>   >
>>   > Commit 6829a048 ("NFS: Retry mounting NFSROOT") has introduced retries when
>>   > mounting NFS root, which means that now we don't immediately fail and instead
>>   > it takes an additional 90+ seconds until we stop retrying.
>>   >
>>   > This meant that it would take an additional 90 seconds to boot when we're not
>>   > using a device type which gets detected in order before NFS.
>>
>>   The long timeouts are kind of irrelevant, in my view.  The real problem is
>>   that NFS was tried at all in this case.  That behavior was not introduced
>>   by 6829a058.
>>
>> The comment does imply that 6829a048 introduced a bug, but that's not true.
>> It uncovered a bug that was there before.
>>
>> I would change the part about "now we don't immediately fail."  It didn't
>> immediately fail before, but the timeout was short enough that you wouldn't
>> notice it.
>
> I tried to point out that 6829a048 changed the behavior which was
> described in the first paragraph, I didn't try to imply that 6829a048 is
> buggy on its own.
>
> I'm fine with changing the changelog to whatever will make it clearer.
>
> --
>
> Sasha.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/