Re: [PATCH 0/3] Enable the setting of a kernel module parameter from nfs.conf

["bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 05:28:08PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-04-20 at 13:18 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:31:58PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > I think the important thing is, as Chuck said, that the setting of
> > > the
> > > uniquifier has to be automated. There are too many instances out
> > > there
> > > of people who get confused because they are using a default
> > > hostname,
> > > such as 'localhost.localdomain' and are setting no uniquifier.
> > > 
> > > So the point is that it needs to be persisted by an automated
> > > script if
> > > unset.
> > > 
> > > While that script could use nfsconf to get/set the persisted
> > > uniquifier, the worry is that such an automated change might be
> > > made
> > > while the user is performing some other edit of nfs.conf. What
> > > happens
> > > then?
> > 
> > The one thing I'm a little uneasy about is ignoring /etc/machine-id.
> > Seems like distros *should* be creating it for us.  And it would be
> > convenient to have one source of machine identity rather than
> > separate
> > ones for different subsystems.
> > 
> > Maybe we could use that if it exists, and fall back on generating our
> > own only if it doesn't?
> > 
> > (Well, where "use it" actually means take a hash of it, as explained
> > in
> > machine-id(5).)
> > 
> 
> Maybe, but that ties the nfs-utils package irrevocably to systemd.

Well, like I say, we could have a fallback.  Or even provide alternative
scripts in nfs-utils and let the distro decide which to install
depending on whether they use systemd.

But, whatever, those two alternatives (machine-id or vs. nfs generating
its own uuid) are basically the same on some level.

I agree with the basic idea that this should be automated rather than
living in a configuration file that humans might have to deal with.

--b.