From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC9F896598 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:18:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7D1C763E0 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:18:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:18:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6FFB745EDD for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:18:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <43b9ee9f-1232-344e-4acc-b304824d30bd@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:18:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/109.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Fiona Ebner References: <20230123091450.58359-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20230123091450.58359-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.046 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [nfsplugin.pm, proxmox.com] Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH storage] nfs: check connection: support NFSv4-only servers without rpcbind X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:18:37 -0000 Am 23/01/2023 um 10:14 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > by simply doing a ping with the expected port as a fallback when the > rpcinfo command fails. > > The timeout was chosen to be 2 seconds, because that's what the > existing callers of tcp_ping() in the iSCSI and GlusterFS plugins use. > > Alternatively, the existing check could be replaced, but that would > 1. Dumb down the check. > 2. Risk breakage in some corner case that's yet to be discovered. > 3. It would still be necessary to use rpcinfo (or dumb the check down > even further) in case port=0; from 'man 5 nfs' about the NFSv4 'port' > option: >> If the specified port value is 0, then the NFS client uses the NFS >> service port number advertised by the server's rpcbind service. > > Reported in the community forum: > https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/118466/post-524449 > https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/120774/ > > Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner > --- > PVE/Storage/NFSPlugin.pm | 14 +++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > applied, thanks!