Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:18:04 -0800 From: Navdeep Parhar <nparhar@gmail.com> To: Derek Taylor <det135@psu.edu> Cc: dfr@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: problems with nfsd (due to RPCSEC_GSS changes?) Message-ID: <20081113001804.GA10822@insightsol.com> In-Reply-To: <20081112150850.GC34909@psu.edu> References: <d04e16b70811111730w1bb7766ei4a628f2d8ddd9078@mail.gmail.com> <20081112150850.GC34909@psu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Regards, Navdeep
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081113001804.GA10822>