Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Rick Macklem wrote:
[stuff snipped]
> >
> > Other than testing diskless NFS root file systems, I do not have a
> > strong opinion w.r.t. whether the default should change.
> >
> > If the default stays as NFSv3, a fallback to NFSv4 could be done, which
> > would handle
Quoting Rick Macklem (from Tue, 4 Jan 2022
03:18:36 +):
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
[good stuff snipped]
The v4 NFS is very different from v3, it is not an upgrade, it is rather
a different network filesystem with some (significant) similarities to v3.
That said, it should be fine
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
[good stuff snipped]
> The v4 NFS is very different from v3, it is not an upgrade, it is rather
> a different network filesystem with some (significant) similarities to v3.
>
> That said, it should be fine changing the defaults, but you need to ensure
> that reasonable
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 09:07:47AM +0900, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> I myself never used NFS, but I don't think it a POLA violation,
> because...
> *Keeping latest-stable (formerly, v3?) to oldest (v2) order.
>
> *Usually, once new version is considered stable, security fixes
>are first done
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 12:15:12AM +, Colin Percival wrote:
> On 1/3/22 10:51, Xin Li wrote:
> > [...]
> > So I think it makes sense to teach mount_nfs to attempt NFSv4, then
> > NFSv3 and NFSv2. However, this might be a POLA violation and we would
> > like to know if there is any objections.
I myself never used NFS, but I don't think it a POLA violation,
because...
*Keeping latest-stable (formerly, v3?) to oldest (v2) order.
*Usually, once new version is considered stable, security fixes
are first done on the latest, then backported to older revs,
causing delay. It can
