Hello > > Hello! I must admit that this patch is broken and does not add any NFSv1 > support. Just look below.... >
So .. let see what happend here. > On Friday 10 March 2023 10:51:55 Christian Gmeiner wrote: > > From: Thomas RIENOESSL <thomas.rienoe...@bachmann.info> > > > > NFSv1 support added by Christian Gmeiner, Thomas Rienoessl, > > September 27, 2018. As of now, NFSv3 is the default choice. > > if the server does not support NFSv3, we fall back to > > versions 2 or 1. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas RIENOESSL <thomas.rienoe...@bachmann.info> > > --- > > net/nfs.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/nfs.c b/net/nfs.c > > index 21cae52f35..7a8887ef23 100644 > > --- a/net/nfs.c > > +++ b/net/nfs.c > > @@ -26,6 +26,10 @@ > > * NFSv2 is still used by default. But if server does not support NFSv2, > > then > > * NFSv3 is used, if available on NFS server. */ > > > > +/* NOTE 5: NFSv1 support added by Christian Gmeiner, Thomas Rienoessl, > > + * September 27, 2018. As of now, NFSv3 is the default choice. If the > > server > > + * does not support NFSv3, we fall back to versions 2 or 1. */ > > + > > #include <common.h> > > #include <command.h> > > #include <display_options.h> > > @@ -78,6 +82,7 @@ static char nfs_path_buff[2048]; > > > > enum nfs_version { > > NFS_UNKOWN = 0, > > + NFS_V1 = 1, > > NFS_V2 = 2, > > NFS_V3 = 3, > > }; > > @@ -192,6 +197,7 @@ static void rpc_req(int rpc_prog, int rpc_proc, > > uint32_t *data, int datalen) > > switch (rpc_prog) { > > case PROG_NFS: > > switch (choosen_nfs_version) { > > + case NFS_V1: > > case NFS_V2: > > rpc_pkt.u.call.vers = htonl(2); > > So if NFSv1 is chosen then this code uses NFSv2. This is either rebasing > problem or just prove that this patch does not add any NFSv1 support. > > > break; > > @@ -205,8 +211,26 @@ static void rpc_req(int rpc_prog, int rpc_proc, > > uint32_t *data, int datalen) > > break; > > } > > break; > > - case PROG_PORTMAP: > > case PROG_MOUNT: > > + switch (choosen_nfs_version) { > > + case NFS_V1: > > + rpc_pkt.u.call.vers = htonl(1); > > + break; > > And later here for NFSv1 we are trying to use Mount Server, which NFSv1 > did not use at all. So this patch really does not have to work with old > NFSv1 servers. > > Instead NFSv1 uses NFSPROC_ROOT RPC call exported by NFS server. > (See that this RPC call is deprecated in NFSv2 and MNT server is used > in NFSv2 instead.) > > MNTv1 is service used by the NFSv2 and it returns NFSv2 file handles > (not NFSv1 file handles). MNTv2 is also used by NFSv2 and as addition to > MNTv1, it adds DIRPATH rpc call. So if NFSv2 does not need to use > DIRPATH then it is fine to use just MNTv1 in NFSv2. > > > + > > + case NFS_V2: > > + rpc_pkt.u.call.vers = htonl(2); > > + break; > > + > > + case NFS_V3: > > + rpc_pkt.u.call.vers = htonl(3); > > + break; > > + > > + case NFS_UNKOWN: > > + /* nothing to do */ > > + break; > > + } > > + break; > > + case PROG_PORTMAP: > > default: > > rpc_pkt.u.call.vers = htonl(2); /* portmapper is version 2 */ > > } > > @@ -311,7 +335,7 @@ static void nfs_readlink_req(void) > > p = &(data[0]); > > p = rpc_add_credentials(p); > > > > - if (choosen_nfs_version == NFS_V2) { > > + if (choosen_nfs_version != NFS_V3) { > > memcpy(p, filefh, NFS_FHSIZE); > > p += (NFS_FHSIZE / 4); > > } else { /* NFS_V3 */ > > @@ -340,7 +364,7 @@ static void nfs_lookup_req(char *fname) > > p = &(data[0]); > > p = rpc_add_credentials(p); > > > > - if (choosen_nfs_version == NFS_V2) { > > + if (choosen_nfs_version != NFS_V3) { > > memcpy(p, dirfh, NFS_FHSIZE); > > p += (NFS_FHSIZE / 4); > > *p++ = htonl(fnamelen); > > @@ -380,7 +404,7 @@ static void nfs_read_req(int offset, int readlen) > > p = &(data[0]); > > p = rpc_add_credentials(p); > > > > - if (choosen_nfs_version == NFS_V2) { > > + if (choosen_nfs_version != NFS_V3) { > > memcpy(p, filefh, NFS_FHSIZE); > > p += (NFS_FHSIZE / 4); > > *p++ = htonl(offset); > > @@ -410,13 +434,13 @@ static void nfs_send(void) > > > > switch (nfs_state) { > > case STATE_PRCLOOKUP_PROG_MOUNT_REQ: > > - if (choosen_nfs_version == NFS_V2) > > + if (choosen_nfs_version != NFS_V3) > > rpc_lookup_req(PROG_MOUNT, 1); > > else /* NFS_V3 */ > > rpc_lookup_req(PROG_MOUNT, 3); > > break; > > case STATE_PRCLOOKUP_PROG_NFS_REQ: > > - if (choosen_nfs_version == NFS_V2) > > + if (choosen_nfs_version != NFS_V3) > > rpc_lookup_req(PROG_NFS, 2); > > else /* NFS_V3 */ > > rpc_lookup_req(PROG_NFS, 3); > > @@ -457,7 +481,7 @@ static int rpc_handle_error(struct rpc_t *rpc_pkt) > > const int min = ntohl(rpc_pkt->u.reply.data[0]); > > const int max = ntohl(rpc_pkt->u.reply.data[1]); > > > > - if (max < NFS_V2 || max > NFS_V3 || min > NFS_V3) { > > + if (max < NFS_V1 || max > NFS_V3 || min > NFS_V3) { > > puts("*** ERROR: NFS version not supported"); > > debug(": Requested: V%d, accepted: min V%d - > > max V%d\n", > > choosen_nfs_version, > > @@ -588,7 +612,7 @@ static int nfs_lookup_reply(uchar *pkt, unsigned len) > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > - if (choosen_nfs_version == NFS_V2) { > > + if (choosen_nfs_version != NFS_V3) { > > if (((uchar *)&(rpc_pkt.u.reply.data[0]) - (uchar > > *)(&rpc_pkt) + NFS_FHSIZE) > len) > > return -NFS_RPC_DROP; > > memcpy(filefh, rpc_pkt.u.reply.data + 1, NFS_FHSIZE); > > @@ -712,7 +736,7 @@ static int nfs_read_reply(uchar *pkt, unsigned len) > > if (!(nfs_offset % ((NFS_READ_SIZE / 2) * 10))) > > putc('#'); > > > > - if (choosen_nfs_version == NFS_V2) { > > + if (choosen_nfs_version != NFS_V3) { > > rlen = ntohl(rpc_pkt.u.reply.data[18]); > > data_ptr = (uchar *)&(rpc_pkt.u.reply.data[19]); > > } else { /* NFS_V3 */ > > -- > > 2.39.2 > > > > And looking at the other changes here, there is really _no_ code which > adds NFSv1 support. > > So what is this patch doing? The only thing which it does is that for > NFSv1 requests it does NFSv2 calls. On every place is just check that > choosen_nfs_version is not NFS_V3. > > Which just basically duplicates NFSv2 to be used two times. > > I would suggest to revisit this patch (who reviewed it at all?) and > either fix it or revert it. And of course properly test it. (And I > really curious where you find NFSv1 server because Linux has already > removed also NFSv2 support from userspace...) Soo. I had a look at RFC 1094 and this patch adds version one of the mount protocol. I am quite unhappy that we got into this state, but the company I worked for uses the term NFSv1 for this in all their configuration tools etc. What would you suggest to improve this situation? -- greets -- Christian Gmeiner, MSc https://christian-gmeiner.info/privacypolicy