Should we split the network filesystem setup into two phases?

[Steve French]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:23 PM Aurélien Aptel <aaptel at suse.com> wrote:
>
> Steve French <smfrench at gmail.com> writes:
> > In cifs we attempt to match new mounts to existing tree connections
> > (instances of connections to a \\server\share) from other mount(s)
> > based first on whether security settings match (e.g. are both
> > Kerberos) and then on whether encryption is on/off and whether this is
> > a snapshot mount (smb3 previous versions feature).  If neither is
> > mounted with a snaphsot and the encryption settings match then
> > we will use the same tree id to talk with the server as the other
> > mounts use.  Interesting idea to allow mount to force a new
> > tree id.
>
> We actually already have this mount option in cifs.ko, it's "nosharesock".

Yes - good point.  It is very easy to do on cifs.  I mainly use that to simulate
multiple clients for testing servers (so each mount to the same server
whether or not the share matched, looks like a different client, coming
from a different socket and thus with different session ids and tree
ids as well).

It is very useful when trying to simulate multiple clients running to the same
server while using only one client machine (or VM).

> > What was the NFS mount option you were talking about?
> > Looking at the nfs man page the only one that looked similar
> > was "nosharecache"

The nfs man page apparently discourages its use:

"As of kernel 2.6.18, the behavior specified by nosharecache is legacy
caching behavior. This is  considered  a  data risk"


-- 
Thanks,

Steve