Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update
draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update
NFSv4 D. Noveck, Ed.
Internet-Draft NetApp
Updates: 5661 (if approved) C. Lever
Intended status: Standards Track ORACLE
Expires: August 9, 2019 February 5, 2019
NFS Version 4.1 Update for Multi-Server Namespace
draft-ietf-nfsv4-mv1-msns-update-04
Abstract
This document presents necessary clarifications and corrections
concerning features related to the use of attributes in NFSv4.1
related to file system location. These features include migration,
which transfers responsibility for a file system from one server to
another, and facilities to support trunking by allowing discovery of
the set of network addresses to use to access a file system. This
document updates RFC5661.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 9, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Summary of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Relationship of this Document to [RFC5661] . . . . . . . 10
4. Changes to Section 11 of [RFC5661] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Updated introductory material for Section 11 of [RFC5661]
entitled "Multi-Server Namespace" . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. New section to be added as the first sub-section of
Section 11 of [RFC5661] to be entitled
"Terminology Related to File System Location" . . . . . . 13
4.3. Updated Section 11.1 of [RFC5661] to be retitled
"File System Location Attributes" . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Re-organization of Sections 11.4 and 11.5 of [RFC5661] . 16
4.5. Updated Section 11.4 of [RFC5661] to be retitled
"Uses of File System Location Information" . . . . . . . 16
4.5.1. New section to be added as the first sub-section of
Section 11.4 of [RFC5661] to be entitled
"Combining Multiple Uses in a Single Attribute" . . . 17
4.5.2. New section to be added as the second sub-section of
Section 11.4 of [RFC5661] to be entitled
"File System Location Attributes and Trunking" . . . 18
4.5.3. New section to be added as the third sub-section of
Section 11.4 of [RFC5661] to be entitled
"File System Location Attributes and Connection Type
Selection" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5.4. Updated Section 11.4.1 of [RFC5661] entitled
"File System Replication" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.5.5. Updated Section 11.4.2 of [RFC5661] entitled
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
"File System Migration" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.5.6. Updated Section 11.4.3 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Referrals" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.5.7. New section to be added after Section 11.4.3 of
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Changes in a File System Location Attribute" . . . . 23
5. Re-organization of Material Dealing with File System
Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. New section to be added after Section 11.6 of [RFC5661]
to be entitled "Overview of File Access Transitions" . . . . 26
7. New section to be added second after Section 11.6 of
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Effecting Network Endpoint Transitions" . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Updated Section 11.7 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Effecting File System Transitions" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.1. Updated Section 11.7.1 of [RFC5661] entitled
"File System Transitions and Simultaneous Access" . . . . 28
8.2. Updated Section 11.7.3 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Filehandles and File System Transitions" . . . . . . . . 28
8.3. Updated Section 11.7.4 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Fileids and File System Transitions" . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.4. Updated section 11.7.5 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Fsids and File System Transitions" . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8.4.1. Updated section 11.7.5.1 of [RFC5661] entitled
"File System Splitting" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8.5. Updated Section 11.7.6 of [RFC5661] entitled
"The Change Attribute and File System Transitions" . . . 31
8.6. Updated Section 11.7.8 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Write Verifiers and File System Transitions" . . . . . . 31
8.7. Updated Section 11.7.9 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Readdir Cookies and Verifiers and File System
Transitions)" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8.8. Updated Section 11.7.10 of [RFC5661] entitled
"File System Data and File System Transitions" . . . . . 32
8.9. Updated Section 11.7.7 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Lock State and File System Transitions" . . . . . . . . 33
9. New section to be added after Section 11.11 of [RFC5661]
to be entitled "Transferring State upon Migration" . . . . . 34
9.1. Only sub-section within new section to be added to
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Transparent State Migration and pNFS" . . . . . . . . . 35
10. New section to be added second after Section 11.11 of
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Client Responsibilities when Access is Transitioned" . . . . 36
10.1. First sub-section within new section to be added to
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Client Transition Notifications" . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10.2. Second sub-section within new section to be added to
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Performing Migration Discovery" . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10.3. Third sub-section within new section to be added to
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Overview of Client Response to NFS4ERR_MOVED" . . . . . 41
10.4. Fourth sub-section within new section to be added to
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Obtaining Access to Sessions and State after Migration" 43
10.5. Fifth sub-section within new section to be added to
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Obtaining Access to Sessions and State after Network
Address Transfer" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
11. New section to be added third after Section 11.11 of
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Server Responsibilities Upon Migration" . . . . . . . . . . 46
11.1. First sub-section within new section to be added to
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Server Responsibilities in Effecting State Reclaim
after Migration" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
11.2. Second sub-section within new section to be added to
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Server Responsibilities in Effecting Transparent State
Migration" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
11.3. Third sub-section within new section to be added to
[RFC5661] to be entitled
"Server Responsibilities in Effecting Session Transfer" 49
12. fs_locations_info . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
12.1. Updates to treatment of fs_locations_info . . . . . . . 51
12.2. Updated Section 11.10 of [RFC5661] entitled
"The Attribute fs_locations_info" . . . . . . . . . . . 52
12.2.1. Updated section 11.10.1 of [RFC5661] entitled
"The fs_locations_server4 Structure" . . . . . . . . 56
12.2.2. Updated Section 11.10.2 of [RFC5661] entitled
"The fs_locations_info4 Structure" . . . . . . . . . 62
12.2.3. Updated Section 11.10.3 of [RFC5661] entitled
"The fs_locations_item4 Structure" . . . . . . . . . 63
13. Changes to [RFC5661] outside Section 11 . . . . . . . . . . . 65
13.1. Updated section 1.7.3.3 of [RFC5661] to be retitled
"Introduction to Multi-Server Namespace" . . . . . . . . 66
13.2. Updated Section 2.10.4 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Server Scope" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
13.3. Revised Treatment of NFS4ERR_MOVED . . . . . . . . . . . 69
13.4. Revised Discussion of Server_owner changes . . . . . . . 69
13.5. Revision to Treatment of EXCHANGE_ID . . . . . . . . . . 71
13.6. Revision to Treatment of RECLAIM_COMPLETE . . . . . . . 72
13.7. Updated Section 15.1.9 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Reclaim Errors" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
13.7.1. Updated Section 15.1.9.1 of [RFC5661] entitled
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
"NFS4ERR_COMPLETE_ALREADY (Error Code 10054)" . . . 72
13.7.2. Updated Section 15.1.9.2 of [RFC5661] entitled
"NFS4ERR_GRACE (Error Code 10013)" . . . . . . . . . 73
13.7.3. Updated Section 15.1.9.3 of [RFC5661] entitled
"NFS4ERR_NO_GRACE (Error Code 10033)" . . . . . . . 73
13.7.4. Updated Section 15.1.9.4 of [RFC5661] entitled
"NFS4ERR_RECLAIM_BAD (Error Code 10034)" . . . . . . 73
13.7.5. Updated Section 15.1.9.5 of [RFC5661] entitled
"NFS4ERR_RECLAIM_CONFLICT (Error Code 10035)" . . . 73
14. Updated Section 18.35 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Operation 42: EXCHANGE_ID - Instantiate Client ID" . . . . . 74
15. Updated Section 18.51 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Operation 58: RECLAIM_COMPLETE - Indicates Reclaims
Finished" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
17. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Appendix A. Classification of Document Sections . . . . . . . . 100
Appendix B. Updates to [RFC5661] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
1. Introduction
This document defines the proper handling, within NFSv4.1, of the
attributes related to file system location fs_locations and
fs_locations_info and how necessary changes in those attributes are
to be dealt with. The necessary corrections and clarifications
parallel those done for NFSv4.0 in [RFC7931] and
[I-D.cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update].
A large part of the changes to be made are necessary to clarify the
handling of Transparent State Migration in NFSv4.1, which was omitted
in [RFC5661]. Many of the issues dealt with in [RFC7931] need to be
addressed in the context of NFSv4.1.
Another important issue to be dealt with concerns the handling of
multiple entries within attributes related to file system locations
that represent different ways to access the same file system.
Unfortunately [RFC5661], while recognizing that these entries can
represent different ways to access the same file system, confuses the
matter by treating network access paths as "replicas", making it
difficult for these attributes to be used to obtain information about
the network addresses to be used to access particular file system
instances and engendering confusion between two different sorts of
transition: those involving a change of network access paths to the
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
same file system instance and those in which there is a shift between
two distinct replicas.
This document supplements facilities related to trunking, introduced
in [RFC5661]. For some important terminology regarding trunking, see
Section 3.1. When file system location information is used to
determine the set of network addresses to access a particular file
system instance (i.e. to perform trunking discovery), clarification
is needed regarding the interaction of trunking and transitions
between file system replicas, including migration. Unfortunately
[RFC5661], while it provided a method of determining whether two
network addresses were connected to the same server, did not address
the issue of trunking discovery, making it necessary to address it in
this document.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Preliminaries
3.1. Terminology
While most of the terms related to multi-server namespace issues are
appropriately defined in the replacement for Section 11 in [RFC5661]
and appear in Section 4.2 below, there are a number of terms used
outside that context that are explained here.
In this document, the phrase "client ID" always refers to the 64-bit
shorthand identifier assigned by the server (a clientid4) and never
to the structure which the client uses to identify itself to the
server (called an nfs_client_id4 or client_owner in NFSv4.0 and
NFSv4.1 respectively). The opaque identifier within those structures
is referred to as a "client id string".
It is particularly important to clarify the distinction between
trunking detection and trunking discovery. The definitions we
present will be applicable to all minor versions of NFSv4, but we
will put particular emphasis on how these terms apply to NFS version
4.1.
o Trunking detection refers to ways of deciding whether two specific
network addresses are connected to the same NFSv4 server. The
means available to make this determination depends on the protocol
version, and, in some cases, on the client implementation.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
In the case of NFS version 4.1 and later minor versions, the means
of trunking detection are as described by [RFC5661] and are
available to every client. Two network addresses connected to the
same server are always server-trunkable but cannot necessarily be
used together to access a single session.
o Trunking discovery is a process by which a client using one
network address can obtain other addresses that are connected to
the same server. Typically it builds on a trunking detection
facility by providing one or more methods by which candidate
addresses are made available to the client who can then use
trunking detection to appropriately filter them.
Despite the support for trunking detection there was no
description of trunking discovery provided in [RFC5661].
Regarding network addresses and the handling of trunking we use the
following terminology:
o Each NFSv4 server is assumed to have a set of IP addresses to
which NFSv4 requests may be sent by clients. These are referred
to as the server's network addresses. Access to a specific server
network address may involve the use of multiple ports, since the
ports to be used for various types of connections might be
required to be different.
o Each network address, when combined with a pathname providing the
location of a file system root directory relative to the
associated server root file handle, defines a file system network
access path.
o Server network addresses are used to establish connections to
servers which may be of a number of connection types. Separate
connection types are used to support NFSv4 layered on top of the
RPC stream transport as described in [RFC5531] and on top of RPC-
over-RDMA as described in [RFC8166].
o The combination of a server network address and a particular
connection type to be used by a connection is referred to as a
"server endpoint". Although using different connection types may
result in different ports being used, the use of different ports
by multiple connections to the same network address is not the
essence of the distinction between the two endpoints used.
o Two network addresses connected to the same server are said to be
server-trunkable. Two such addresses support the use of clientid
ID trunking, as described in [RFC5661]
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o Two network addresses connected to the same server such that those
addresses can be used to support a single common session are
referred to as session-trunkable. Note that two addresses may be
server-trunkable without being session-trunkable and that when two
connections of different connection types are made to the same
network address and are based on a single file system location
entry they are always session-trunkable, independent of the
connection type, as specified by [RFC5661], since their derivation
from the same file system location entry together with the
identity of their network addresses assures that both connections
are to the same server and will return server-owner information
allowing session trunking to be used.
Discussion of the term "replica" is complicated for a number of
reasons:
o Even though the term is used in explaining the issues in [RFC5661]
that need to be addressed in this document, a full explanation of
this term requires explanation of related terms connected to the
file system location attributes which are provided in Section 4.2
of the current document.
o The term is also used in [RFC5661], with a meaning different from
that in the current document. In short, in [RFC5661] each replica
is a identified by a single network access path while, in the
current document a set of network access paths which have server-
trunkable network addresses and the same root-relative file system
pathname are considered to be a single replica with multiple
network access paths.
3.2. Summary of Issues
This document explains how clients and servers are to determine the
particular network access paths to be used to access a file system.
This includes describing how changes to the specific replica or to
the set of addresses to be used are to be dealt with, and how
transfers of responsibility that need to be made can be dealt with
transparently. This includes cases in which there is a shift between
one replica and another and those in which different network access
paths are used to access the same replica.
As a result of the following problems in [RFC5661], it is necessary
to provide the updates described later in this document.
o [RFC5661], while it dealt with situations in which various forms
of clustering allowed co-ordination of the state assigned by co-
operating servers to be used, made no provisions for Transparent
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
State Migration, as introduced by [RFC7530] and corrected and
clarified by [RFC7931].
o Although NFSv4.1 was defined with a clear definition of how
trunking detection was to be done, there was no clear
specification of how trunking discovery was to be done, despite
the fact that the specification clearly indicated that this
information could be made available via the file system location
attributes.
o Because the existence of multiple network access paths to the same
file system was dealt with as if there were multiple replicas,
issues relating to transitions between replicas could never be
clearly distinguished from trunking-related transitions between
the addresses used to access a particular file system instance.
As a result, in situations in which both migration and trunking
configuration changes were involved, neither of these could be
clearly dealt with and the relationship between these two features
was not seriously addressed.
o Because use of two network access paths to the same file system
instance (i.e. trunking) was often treated as if two replicas were
involved, it was considered that two replicas were being used
simultaneously. As a result, the treatment of replicas being used
simultaneously in [RFC5661] was not clear as it covered the two
distinct cases of a single file system instance being accessed by
two different network access paths and two replicas being accessed
simultaneously, with the limitations of the latter case not being
clearly laid out.
The majority of the consequences of these issues are dealt with via
the updates in various subsections of Section 4 and the whole of
Section 12 within the current document which deal with problems
within Section 11 of [RFC5661] These changes include:
o Reorganization made necessary by the fact that two network access
paths to the same file system instance needs to be distinguished
clearly from two different replicas since the former share locking
state and can share session state.
o The need for a clear statement regarding the desirability of
transparent transfer of state together with a recommendation that
either that or a single-fs grace period be provided.
o Specifically delineating how such transfers are to be dealt with
by the client, taking into account the differences from the
treatment in [RFC7931] made necessary by the major protocol
changes made in NFSv4.1.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o Discussion of the relationship between transparent state transfer
and Parallel NFS (pNFS).
o A clarification of the fs_locations_info attribute to specify
which portions of the information provided apply to a specific
network access path and which to the replica which that path is
used to access.
In addition, there are also updates to other sections of [RFC5661],
where the consequences of the incorrect assumptions underlying the
current treatment of multi-server namespace issues also need to be
corrected. These are to be dealt with as described in Sections 13
through 15 of the current document.
o A revised introductory section regarding multi-server namespace
facilities is provided.
o A more realistic treatment of server scope is provided, which
reflects the more limited co-ordination of locking state adopted
by servers actually sharing a common server scope.
o Some confusing text regarding changes in server_owner has been
clarified.
o The description of NFS4ERR_MOVED needs to be updated since two
different network access paths to the same file system are no
longer considered to be two instances of the same file system.
o A new treatment of EXCHANGE_ID is needed, replacing that which
appeared in Section 18.35 of [RFC5661]. This is necessary since
the existing treatment of client id confirmation does not make
sense in the context of transparent state migration, in which
client ids are transferred between source and destination servers.
o A new treatment of RECLAIM_COMPLETE is needed, replacing that
which appeared in Section 18.51 of [RFC5661]. This is necessary
to clarify the function of the one-fs flag and clarify how
existing clients, that might not properly use this flag, are to be
dealt with.
3.3. Relationship of this Document to [RFC5661]
The role of this document is to explain and specify a set of needed
changes to [RFC5661]. All of these changes are related to the multi-
server namespace features of NFSv4.1.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
This document contains sections that provide additions to and other
modifications of [RFC5661] as well as others that explain the reasons
for modifications but do not directly affect existing specifications.
In consequence, the sections of this document can be divided into
four groups based on how they relate to the eventual updating of the
NFSv4.1 specification. Once the update is published, NFSv4.1 will be
specified by two documents that need to be read together, until such
time as a consolidated specification is produced.
o Explanatory sections do not contain any material that is meant to
update the specification of NFSv4.1. Such sections may contain
explanations about why and how changes are to be done, without
including any text that is to update [RFC5661] or appear in an
eventual consolidated document,
o Replacement sections contain text that is to replace and thus
supersede text within [RFC5661] and then appear in an eventual
consolidated document. The titles of replacement sections
indicate the section(s) within [RFC5661] that is to be replaced.
o Additional sections contain text which, although not replacing
anything in [RFC5661], will be part of the specification of
NFSv4.1 and will be expected to be part of an eventual
consolidated document. The titles of additional sections indicate
where, within [RFC5661], the new section would appear.
o Editing sections contain some text that replaces text within
[RFC5661], although the entire section will not consist of such
text and will include other text as well. Such sections make
relatively minor adjustments in the existing NFSv4.1 specification
which are expected to reflected in an eventual consolidated
document. Generally such replacement text appears as a quotation,
which may take the form of an indented set of paragraphs.
See Appendix A for a classification of the sections of this document
according to the categories above.
When this document is approved and published, [RFC5661] would be
significantly updated with most of the changed sections within the
current Section 11 of that document. A detailed discussion of the
necessary updates can be found in Appendix B.
4. Changes to Section 11 of [RFC5661]
A number of sections need to be revised, replacing existing sub-
sections within section 11 of [RFC5661]:
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o New introductory material, including a terminology section,
replaces the existing material in [RFC5661] ranging from the start
of the existing Section 11 up to and including the existing
Section 11.1. The new material appears in Sections 4.1 through
4.3 below.
o A significant reorganization of the material in the existing
Sections 11.4 and 11.5 (of [RFC5661]) is necessary. The reasons
for the reorganization of these sections into a single section
with multiple subsections are discussed in Section 4.4 below.
This replacement appears as Section 4.5 below.
New material relating to the handling of the file system location
attributes is contained in Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.7 below.
o A major replacement for the existing Section 11.7 of [RFC5661]
entitled "Effecting File System Transitions", will appear as
Sections 6 through 11 of the current document. The reasons for
the reorganization of this section into multiple sections are
discussed below in Section 5 of the current document.
o A replacement for the existing Section 11.10 of [RFC5661] entitled
"The Attribute fs_locations_info", will appear as Section 12.2 of
the current document, with Section 12.1 describing the differences
between the new section and the treatment within [RFC5661]. A
revised treatment is necessary because the existing treatment did
not make clear how the added attribute information relates to the
case of trunked paths to the same replica. These issues were not
addressed in [RFC5661] where the concepts of a replica and a
network path used to access a replica were not clearly
distinguished.
4.1. Updated introductory material for Section 11 of [RFC5661] entitled
"Multi-Server Namespace"
NFSv4.1 supports attributes that allow a namespace to extend beyond
the boundaries of a single server. It is desirable that clients and
servers support construction of such multi-server namespaces. Use of
such multi-server namespaces is OPTIONAL however, and for many
purposes, single-server namespaces are perfectly acceptable. Use of
multi-server namespaces can provide many advantages, by separating a
file system's logical position in a namespace from the (possibly
changing) logistical and administrative considerations that result in
particular file systems being located on particular servers.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
4.2. New section to be added as the first sub-section of Section 11 of
[RFC5661] to be entitled "Terminology Related to File System
Location"
Regarding terminology relating to the construction of multi-server
namespaces out of a set of local per-server namespaces:
o Each server has a set of exported file systems which may accessed
by NFSv4 clients. Typically, this is done by assigning each file
system a name within the pseudo-fs associated with the server,
although the pseudo-fs may be dispensed with if there is only a
single exported file system. Each such file system is part of the
server's local namespace, and can be considered as a file system
instance within a larger multi-server namespace.
o The set of all exported file systems for a given server
constitutes that server's local namespace.
o In some cases, a server will have a namespace more extensive than
its local namespace, by using features associated with attributes
that provide file system location information. These features,
which allow construction of a multi-server namespace are all
described in individual sections below and include referrals
(described in Section 4.5.6), migration (described in
Section 4.5.5), and replication (described in Section 4.5.4).
o A file system present in a server's pseudo-fs may have multiple
file system instances on different servers associated with it.
All such instances are considered replicas of one another.
o When a file system is present in a server's pseudo-fs, but there
is no corresponding local file system, it is said to be "absent".
In such cases, all associated instances will be accessed on other
servers.
Regarding terminology relating to attributes used in trunking
discovery and other multi-server namespace features:
o File system location attributes include the fs_locations and
fs_locations_info attributes.
o File system location entries provide the individual file system
locations within the file system location attributes. Each such
entry specifies a server, in the form of a host name or IP
address, and an fs name, which designates the location of the file
system within the server's pseudo-fs. A file system location
entry designates a set of server endpoints to which the client may
establish connections. There may be multiple endpoints because a
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
host name may map to multiple network addresses and because
multiple connection types may be used to communicate with a single
network address. However, all such endpoints MUST provide a way
of connecting to a single server. The exact form of the location
entry varies with the particular file system location attribute
used, as described in Section 4.3.
o File system location elements are derived from location entries
and each describes a particular network access path, consisting of
a network address and a location within the server's pseudo-fs.
Such location elements need not appear within a file system
location attribute, but the existence of each location element
derives from a corresponding location entry. When a location
entry specifies an IP address there is only a single corresponding
location element. File system location entries that contain a
host name, are resolved using DNS, and may result in one or more
location elements. All location elements consist of a location
address which is the IP address of an interface to a server and an
fs name which is the location of the file system within the
server's pseudo-fs. The fs name is empty if the server has no
pseudo-fs and only a single exported file system at the root
filehandle.
o Two file system location elements are said to be server-trunkable
if they specify the same fs name and the location addresses are
such that the location addresses are server-trunkable. When the
corresponding network paths are used, the client will always be
able to use client ID trunking, but will only be able to use
session trunking if the paths are also session-trunkable.
o Two file system location elements are said to be session-trunkable
if they specify the same fs name and the location addresses are
such that the location addresses are session-trunkable. When the
corresponding network paths are used, the client will be able to
able to use either client ID trunking or session trunking.
Each set of server-trunkable location elements defines a set of
available network access paths to a particular file system. When
there are multiple such file systems, each of which contains the same
data, these file systems are considered replicas of one another.
Logically, such replication is symmetric, since the fs currently in
use and an alternate fs are replicas of each other. Often, in other
documents, the term "replica" is not applied to the fs currently in
use, despite the fact that the replication relation is inherently
symmetric.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
4.3. Updated Section 11.1 of [RFC5661] to be retitled "File System
Location Attributes"
NFSv4.1 contains RECOMMENDED attributes that provide information
about how (i.e. at what network address and namespace position) a
given file system may be accessed. As a result, file systems in the
namespace of one server can be associated with one or more instances
of that file system on other servers. These attributes contain file
system location entries specifying a server address target (either as
a DNS name representing one or more IP addresses or as a specific IP
address) together with the pathname of that file system within the
associated single-server namespace.
The fs_locations_info RECOMMENDED attribute allows specification of
one or more file system instance locations where the data
corresponding to a given file system may be found. This attribute
provides to the client, in addition to specification of file system
instance locations, other helpful information such as:
o Information guiding choices among the various file system
instances provided (e.g., priority for use, writability, currency,
etc.).
o Information to help the client efficiently effect as seamless a
transition as possible among multiple file system instances, when
and if that should be necessary.
o Information helping to guide the selection of the appropriate
connection type to be used when establishing a connection.
Within the fs_locations_info attribute, each fs_locations_server4
entry corresponds to a file system location entry with the fls_server
field designating the server, with the location pathname within the
server's pseudo-fs given by the fl_rootpath field of the encompassing
fs_locations_item4.
The fs_locations attribute defined in NFSv4.0 is also a part of
NFSv4.1. This attribute only allows specification of the file system
locations where the data corresponding to a given file system may be
found. Servers should make this attribute available whenever
fs_locations_info is supported, but client use of fs_locations_info
is preferable, as it provides more information.
Within the fs_location attribute, each fs_location4 contains a file
system location entry with the server field designating the server
and the rootpath field giving the location pathname within the
server's pseudo-fs.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
4.4. Re-organization of Sections 11.4 and 11.5 of [RFC5661]
Previously, issues related to the fact that multiple location entries
directed the client to the same file system instance were dealt with
in a separate Section 11.5 of [RFC5661]. Because of the new
treatment of trunking, these issues now belong within Section 4.5
below.
In this new section of the current document, trunking is dealt with
in Section 4.5.2 together with the other uses of file system location
information described in Sections 4.5.4, 4.5.5, and 4.5.6.
As a result, Section 4.5 which will replace Section 11.4 of [RFC5661]
is substantially different than the section it replaces in that some
existing sections will be replaced by corresponding sections below
while, at the same time, new sections will be added, resulting in a
replacement containing some renumbered sections, as follows:
o The material in Section 4.5 of the current document, exclusive of
subsections, replaces the material in Section 11.4 of [RFC5661]
exclusive of subsections.
o Section 4.5.1 of the current document is a new first subsection of
the overall section. In a consolidated document it would appear
as Section 11.4.1.
o Section 4.5.2 of the current document is a new second subsection
of the overall section. In a consolidated document it would
appear as Section 11.4.2.
o Each of the Sections 4.5.4, 4.5.5, and 4.5.6 of the current
document replaces (in order) one of the corresponding Sections
11.4.1, 11.4.2, and 11.4.3 of [RFC5661]. In a consolidated
document they would appear as Sections 11.4.3, 11.4.4, and 11.4.5.
o Section 4.5.7 of the current document is a new final subsection of
the overall section. In a consolidated document it would appear
as Section 11.4.6.
4.5. Updated Section 11.4 of [RFC5661] to be retitled "Uses of File
System Location Information"
The file system location attributes (i.e. fs_locations and
fs_locations_info), together with the possibility of absent file
systems, provide a number of important facilities in providing
reliable, manageable, and scalable data access.
When a file system is present, these attributes can provide
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o The locations of alternative replicas, to be used to access the
same data in the event of server failures, communications
problems, or other difficulties that make continued access to the
current replica impossible or otherwise impractical. Provision
and use of such alternate replicas is referred to as "replication"
and is discussed in Section 4.5.4 below.
o The network address(es) to be used to access the current file
system instance or replicas of it. Client use of this information
is discussed in Section 4.5.2 below.
Under some circumstances, multiple replicas may be used
simultaneously to provide higher-performance access to the file
system in question, although the lack of state sharing between
servers may be an impediment to such use.
When a file system is present and becomes absent, clients can be
given the opportunity to have continued access to their data, using a
different replica. In this case, a continued attempt to use the data
in the now-absent file system will result in an NFS4ERR_MOVED error
and, at that point, the successor replica or set of possible replica
choices can be fetched and used to continue access. Transfer of
access to the new replica location is referred to as "migration", and
is discussed in Section 4.5.4 below.
Where a file system was previously absent, specification of file
system location provides a means by which file systems located on one
server can be associated with a namespace defined by another server,
thus allowing a general multi-server namespace facility. A
designation of such a remote instance, in place of a file system
never previously present , is called a "pure referral" and is
discussed in Section 4.5.6 below.
Because client support for attributes related to file system location
is OPTIONAL, a server may (but is not required to) take action to
hide migration and referral events from such clients, by acting as a
proxy, for example. The server can determine the presence of client
support from the arguments of the EXCHANGE_ID operation (see
Section 14.3 in the current document).
4.5.1. New section to be added as the first sub-section of Section 11.4
of [RFC5661] to be entitled "Combining Multiple Uses in a Single
Attribute"
A file system location attribute will sometimes contain information
relating to the location of multiple replicas which may be used in
different ways.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o File system location entries that relate to the file system
instance currently in use provide trunking information, allowing
the client to find additional network addresses by which the
instance may be accessed.
o File system location entries that provide information about
replicas to which access is to be transferred.
o Other file system location entries that relate to replicas that
are available to use in the event that access to the current
replica becomes unsatisfactory.
In order to simplify client handling and allow the best choice of
replicas to access, the server should adhere to the following
guidelines.
o All file system location entries that relate to a single file
system instance should be adjacent.
o File system location entries that relate to the instance currently
in use should appear first.
o File system location entries that relate to replica(s) to which
migration is occurring should appear before replicas which are
available for later use if the current replica should become
inaccessible.
4.5.2. New section to be added as the second sub-section of
Section 11.4 of [RFC5661] to be entitled "File System Location
Attributes and Trunking"
Trunking is the use of multiple connections between a client and
server in order to increase the speed of data transfer. A client may
determine the set of network addresses to use to access a given file
system in a number of ways:
o When the name of the server is known to the client, it may use DNS
to obtain a set of network addresses to use in accessing the
server.
o The client may fetch the file system location attribute for the
file system. This will provide either the name of the server
(which can be turned into a set of network addresses using DNS),
or a set of server-trunkable location entries. Using the latter
alternative, the server can provide addresses it regards as
desirable to use to access the file system in question.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
The server can provide location entries that include either names or
network addresses. It might use the latter form because of DNS-
related security concerns or because the set of addresses to be used
might require active management by the server.
Locations entries used to discover candidate addresses for use in
trunking are subject to change, as discussed in Section 4.5.7 below.
The client may respond to such changes by using additional addresses
once they are verified or by ceasing to use existing ones. The
server can force the client to cease using an address by returning
NFS4ERR_MOVED when that address is used to access a file system.
This allows a transfer of client access which is similar to
migration, although the same file system instance is accessed
throughout.
4.5.3. New section to be added as the third sub-section of Section 11.4
of [RFC5661] to be entitled "File System Location Attributes and
Connection Type Selection"
Because of the need to support multiple connections, clients face the
issue of determining the proper connection type to use when
establishing a connection to a given server network address. In some
cases, this issue can be addressed through the use of the connection
"step-up" facility described in Section 18.16 of [RFC5661]. However,
because there are cases is which that facility is not available, the
client may have to choose a connection type with no possibility of
changing it within the scope of a single connection.
The two file system location attributes differ as to the information
made available in this regard. Fs_locations provides no information
to support connection type selection. As a result, clients
supporting multiple connection types would need to attempt to
establish connections using multiple connection types until the one
preferred by the client is successfully established.
Fs_locations_info includes a flag, FSLI4TF_RDMA, which, when set
indicates that RPC-over-RDMA support is available using the specified
location entry, by "stepping up" an existing TCP connection to
include support for RDMA operation. This flag makes it convenient
for a client wishing to use RDMA to establish a TCP connection and
then convert to use of RDMA. After establishing a TCP connection,
the step-up facility can be used, if available, to convert that
connection to RDMA mode.
Irrespective of the particular attribute used, when there is no
indication that a step-up operation can be performed, a client
supporting RDMA operation can establish a new RDMA connection and it
can be bound to the session already established by the TCP
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
connection, allowing the TCP connection to be dropped and the session
converted to further use in RDMA node.
4.5.4. Updated Section 11.4.1 of [RFC5661] entitled "File System
Replication"
The fs_locations and fs_locations_info attributes provide alternative
file system locations, to be used to access data in place of or in
addition to the current file system instance. On first access to a
file system, the client should obtain the set of alternate locations
by interrogating the fs_locations or fs_locations_info attribute,
with the latter being preferred.
In the event that server failures, communications problems, or other
difficulties make continued access to the current file system
impossible or otherwise impractical, the client can use the alternate
locations as a way to get continued access to its data.
The alternate locations may be physical replicas of the (typically
read-only) file system data, or they may provide for the use of
various forms of server clustering in which multiple servers provide
alternate ways of accessing the same physical file system. How these
different modes of file system transition are represented within the
fs_locations and fs_locations_info attributes and how the client
deals with file system transition issues will be discussed in detail
below.
4.5.5. Updated Section 11.4.2 of [RFC5661] entitled "File System
Migration"
When a file system is present and becomes absent, the NFSv4.1
protocol provides a means by which clients can be given the
opportunity to have continued access to their data, using a different
replica. The location of this replica is specified by a file system
location attribute. The ensuing migration of access to another
replica includes the ability to retain locks across the transition,
either by using lock reclaim or by taking advantage of Transparent
State Migration.
Typically, a client will be accessing the file system in question,
get an NFS4ERR_MOVED error, and then use a file system location
attribute to determine the new location of the data. When
fs_locations_info is used, additional information will be available
that will define the nature of the client's handling of the
transition to a new server.
Such migration can be helpful in providing load balancing or general
resource reallocation. The protocol does not specify how the file
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
system will be moved between servers. It is anticipated that a
number of different server-to-server transfer mechanisms might be
used with the choice left to the server implementer. The NFSv4.1
protocol specifies the method used to communicate the migration event
between client and server.
The new location may be, in the case of various forms of server
clustering, another server providing access to the same physical file
system. The client's responsibilities in dealing with this
transition will depend on whether migration has occurred and the
means the server has chosen to provide continuity of locking state.
These issues will be discussed in detail below.
Although a single successor location is typical, multiple locations
may be provided. When multiple locations are provided, the client
will typically use the first one provided. If that is inaccessible
for some reason, later ones can be used. In such cases the client
might consider that the transition to the new replica as a migration
event, even though some of the servers involved might not be aware of
the use of the server which was inaccessible. In such a case, a
client might lose access to locking state as a result of the access
transfer.
When an alternate location is designated as the target for migration,
it must designate the same data (with metadata being the same to the
degree indicated by the fs_locations_info attribute). Where file
systems are writable, a change made on the original file system must
be visible on all migration targets. Where a file system is not
writable but represents a read-only copy (possibly periodically
updated) of a writable file system, similar requirements apply to the
propagation of updates. Any change visible in the original file
system must already be effected on all migration targets, to avoid
any possibility that a client, in effecting a transition to the
migration target, will see any reversion in file system state.
4.5.6. Updated Section 11.4.3 of [RFC5661] entitled "Referrals"
Referrals allow the server to associate a file system namespace entry
located on one server with a file system located on another server.
When this includes the use of pure referrals, servers are provided a
way of placing a file system in a location within the namespace
essentially without respect to its physical location on a particular
server. This allows a single server or a set of servers to present a
multi-server namespace that encompasses file systems located on a
wider range of servers. Some likely uses of this facility include
establishment of site-wide or organization-wide namespaces, with the
eventual possibility of combining such together into a truly global
namespace.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
Referrals occur when a client determines, upon first referencing a
position in the current namespace, that it is part of a new file
system and that the file system is absent. When this occurs,
typically upon receiving the error NFS4ERR_MOVED, the actual location
or locations of the file system can be determined by fetching a
locations attribute.
The file system location attribute may designate a single file system
location or multiple file system locations, to be selected based on
the needs of the client. The server, in the fs_locations_info
attribute, may specify priorities to be associated with various file
system location choices. The server may assign different priorities
to different locations as reported to individual clients, in order to
adapt to client physical location or to effect load balancing. When
both read-only and read-write file systems are present, some of the
read-only locations might not be absolutely up-to-date (as they would
have to be in the case of replication and migration). Servers may
also specify file system locations that include client-substituted
variables so that different clients are referred to different file
systems (with different data contents) based on client attributes
such as CPU architecture.
When the fs_locations_info attribute is such that that there are
multiple possible targets listed, the relationships among them may be
important to the client in selecting which one to use. The same
rules specified in Section 4.5.5 below regarding multiple migration
targets apply to these multiple replicas as well. For example, the
client might prefer a writable target on a server that has additional
writable replicas to which it subsequently might switch. Note that,
as distinguished from the case of replication, there is no need to
deal with the case of propagation of updates made by the current
client, since the current client has not accessed the file system in
question.
Use of multi-server namespaces is enabled by NFSv4.1 but is not
required. The use of multi-server namespaces and their scope will
depend on the applications used and system administration
preferences.
Multi-server namespaces can be established by a single server
providing a large set of pure referrals to all of the included file
systems. Alternatively, a single multi-server namespace may be
administratively segmented with separate referral file systems (on
separate servers) for each separately administered portion of the
namespace. The top-level referral file system or any segment may use
replicated referral file systems for higher availability.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
Generally, multi-server namespaces are for the most part uniform, in
that the same data made available to one client at a given location
in the namespace is made available to all clients at that location.
However, there are facilities provided that allow different clients
to be directed to different sets of data, to enable adaptation to
such client characteristics as CPU architecture. These facilities
are described in Section 11.10.3 of [RFC5661] and in Section 12.2.3
of the current document.
4.5.7. New section to be added after Section 11.4.3 of [RFC5661] to be
entitled "Changes in a File System Location Attribute"
Although clients will typically fetch a file system location
attribute when first accessing a file system and when NFS4ERR_MOVED
is returned, a client can choose to fetch the attribute periodically,
in which case the value fetched may change over time.
For clients not prepared to access multiple replicas simultaneously
(see Section 8.1 of the current document), the handling of the
various cases of change is as follows:
o Changes in the list of replicas or in the network addresses
associated with replicas do not require immediate action. The
client will typically update its list of replicas to reflect the
new information.
o Additions to the list of network addresses for the current file
system instance need not be acted on promptly. However the client
can choose to use the new address whenever it needs to switch
access to a new replica.
o Deletions from the list of network addresses for the current file
system instance need not be acted on immediately, although the
client might need to be prepared for a shift in access whenever
the server indicates that a network access path is not usable to
access the current file system, by returning NFS4ERR_MOVED.
For clients that are prepared to access several replicas
simultaneously, the following additional cases need to be addressed.
As in the cases discussed above, changes in the set of replicas need
not be acted upon promptly, although the client has the option of
adjusting its access even in the absence of difficulties that would
lead to a new replica to be selected.
o When a new replica is added which may be accessed simultaneously
with one currently in use, the client is free to use the new
replica immediately.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o When a replica currently in use is deleted from the list, the
client need not cease using it immediately. However, since the
server may subsequently force such use to cease (by returning
NFS4ERR_MOVED), clients might decide to limit the need for later
state transfer. For example, new opens might be done on other
replicas, rather than on one not present in the list.
5. Re-organization of Material Dealing with File System Transitions
The material relating to file system transition, previously contained
in Section 11.7 of [RFC5661] has been reorganized and augmented as
described below:
o Because there can be a shift of the network access paths used to
access a file system instance without any shift between replicas,
a new Section 6 in the current document distinguishes between
those cases in which there is a shift between distinct replicas
and those involving a shift in network access paths with no shift
between replicas.
As a result, a new Section 7 in the current document deals with
network address transitions while the bulk of the former
Section 11.7 (in [RFC5661]) is extensively modified as described
by Section 8 in the current document which is now limited to cases
in which there is a shift between two different sets of replicas.
o The additional Section 9 in the current document discusses the
case in which a shift to a different replica is made and state is
transferred to allow the client the ability to have continues
access to the accumulated locking state on the new server.
o The additional Section 10 in the current document discusses the
client's response to access transitions and how it determines
whether migration has occurred, and how it gets access to any
transferred locking and session state.
o The additional Section 11 in the current document discusses the
responsibilities of the source and destination servers when
transferring locking and session state.
This re-organization has caused a renumbering of the sections within
Section 11 of [RFC5661] as described below:
o The new Sections 6 and 7 in the current document would appear as
Sections 11.7 and 11.8 respectively, in an eventual consolidated
document.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o Section 11.7 of [RFC5661] will be modified as described in
Section 8. The necessary modifications reflect the fact that this
section will only deal with transitions between replicas while
transitions between network addresses are dealt with in other
sections. Details of the reorganization are described later in
this section. The updated section would appear as Section 11.9 in
an eventual consolidated document.
o The additional Sections 9, 10, and 11 in the current document
would appear as Sections 11.10, 11.11, and 11.12 respectively, in
an eventual consolidated document.
o Consequently, Sections 11.8, 11.9, 11.10, and 11.11 in [RFC5661]
would appear as Sections 11.13, 11.14, 11.15, and 11.16
respectively, in an eventual consolidated document.
As part of this general re-organization, Section 11.7 of [RFC5661]
will be modified as described below:
o Sections 11.7 and 11.7.1 of [RFC5661] are to be replaced by
Sections 8 8.1 respectively of the current document These sections
would appear as Section 11.9 and 11.9.1 in an eventual
consolidated document.
o Section 11.7.2 (and included subsections) of [RFC5661] are to be
deleted.
o Sections 11.7.3, 11.7.4. 11.7.5, 11.7.5.1, and 11.7.6 [RFC5661]
are to be replaced by Sections 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.4.1, and 8.5
respectively of the current document. These sections would appear
as Sections 11.9.2, 11.9.3 11.9.4, 11.9.4.1 and 11.9.5 in an
eventual consolidated document.
o Section 11.77 of [RFC5661] is to be replaced by Section 8.9.
Because this sub-section has been moved to the end of the section
dealing with file system transitions, it would appear as
Section 11.9.9 in an eventual consolidated document.
o Sections 11.7.8, 11.7.9. and 11.7.10 of [RFC5661] are to be
replaced by Sections 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8 respectively of the current
document. These sections would appear as Sections 11.9.6, 11.9.7
and 11.9.8 in an eventual consolidated document.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
6. New section to be added after Section 11.6 of [RFC5661] to be
entitled "Overview of File Access Transitions"
File access transitions are of two types:
o Those that involve a transition from accessing the current replica
to another one in connection with either replication or migration.
How these are dealt with is discussed in Section 8 of the current
document.
o Those in which access to the current file system instance is
retained, while the network path used to access that instance is
changed. This case is discussed in Section 7 of the current
document.
7. New section to be added second after Section 11.6 of [RFC5661] to be
entitled "Effecting Network Endpoint Transitions"
The endpoints used to access a particular file system instance may
change in a number of ways, as listed below. In each of these cases,
the same filehandles, stateids, client IDs and session are used to
continue access, with a continuity of lock state.
o When use of a particular address is to cease and there is also one
currently in use which is server-trunkable with it, requests that
would have been issued on the address whose use is to be
discontinued can be issued on the remaining address(es). When an
address is not a session-trunkable one, the request might need to
be modified to reflect the fact that a different session will be
used.
o When use of a particular connection is to cease, as indicated by
receiving NFS4ERR_MOVED when using that connection but that
address is still indicated as accessible according to the
appropriate file system location entries, it is likely that
requests can be issued on a new connection of a different
connection type, once that connection is established. Since any
two server endpoints that share a network address are inherently
session-trunkable, the client can use BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION to
access the existing session using the new connection and proceed
to access the file system using the new connection.
o When there are no potential replacement addresses in use but there
are valid addresses session-trunkable with the one whose use is to
be discontinued, the client can use BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION to access
the existing session using the new address. Although the target
session will generally be accessible, there may be cases in which
that session in no longer accessible, in which case a new session
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
can be created to provide the client continued access to the
existing instance.
o When there is no potential replacement address in use and there
are no valid addresses session-trunkable with the one whose use is
to be discontinued, other server-trunkable addresses may be used
to provide continued access. Although use of CREATE_SESSION is
available to provide continued access to the existing instance,
servers have the option of providing continued access to the
existing session through the new network access path in a fashion
similar to that provided by session migration (see Section 9 of
the current document). To take advantage of this possibility,
clients can perform an initial BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION, as in the
previous case, and use CREATE_SESSION only if that fails.
8. Updated Section 11.7 of [RFC5661] entitled "Effecting File System
Transitions"
There are a range of situations in which there is a change to be
effected in the set of replicas used to access a particular file
system. Some of these may involve an expansion or contraction of the
set of replicas used as discussed in Section 8.1 below.
For reasons explained in that section, most transitions will involve
a transition from a single replica to a corresponding replacement
replica. When effecting replica transition, some types of sharing
between the replicas may affect handling of the transition as
described in Sections 8.2 through 8.8 below. The attribute
fs_locations_info provides helpful information to allow the client to
determine the degree of inter-replica sharing.
With regard to some types of state, the degree of continuity across
the transition depends on the occasion prompting the transition, with
transitions initiated by the servers (i.e. migration) offering much
more scope for a non-disruptive transition than cases in which the
client on its own shifts its access to another replica (i.e.
replication). This issue potentially applies to locking state and to
session state, which are dealt with below as follows:
o An introduction to the possible means of providing continuity of
these areas appears in Section 8.9 below.
o Transparent State Migration is introduced in Section 9 of the
current document. The possible transfer of session state is
addressed there as well.
o The client handling of transitions, including determining how to
deal with the various means that the server might take to supply
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
effective continuity of locking state are discussed in Section 10
of the current document.
o The servers' (source and destination) responsibilities in
effecting Transparent Migration of locking and session state are
discussed in Section 11 of the current document.
8.1. Updated Section 11.7.1 of [RFC5661] entitled "File System
Transitions and Simultaneous Access"
The fs_locations_info attribute (described in Section 11.10.1 of
[RFC5661] and Section 12.2 of this document) may indicate that two
replicas may be used simultaneously (see Section 11.7.2.1 of
[RFC5661] for details). Although situations in which multiple
replicas may be accessed simultaneously are somewhat similar to those
in which a single replica is accessed by multiple network addresses,
there are important differences, since locking state is not shared
among multiple replicas.
Because of this difference in state handling, many clients will not
have the ability to take advantage of the fact that such replicas
represent the same data. Such clients will not be prepared to use
multiple replicas simultaneously but will access each file system
using only a single replica, although the replica selected might make
multiple server-trunkable addresses available.
Clients who are prepared to use multiple replicas simultaneously will
divide opens among replicas however they choose. Once that choice is
made, any subsequent transitions will treat the set of locking state
associated with each replica as a single entity.
For example, if one of the replicas become unavailable, access will
be transferred to a different replica, also capable of simultaneous
access with the one still in use.
When there is no such replica, the transition may be to the replica
already in use. At this point, the client has a choice between
merging the locking state for the two replicas under the aegis of the
sole replica in use or treating these separately, until another
replica capable of simultaneous access presents itself.
8.2. Updated Section 11.7.3 of [RFC5661] entitled "Filehandles and File
System Transitions"
There are a number of ways in which filehandles can be handled across
a file system transition. These can be divided into two broad
classes depending upon whether the two file systems across which the
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
transition happens share sufficient state to effect some sort of
continuity of file system handling.
When there is no such cooperation in filehandle assignment, the two
file systems are reported as being in different handle classes. In
this case, all filehandles are assumed to expire as part of the file
system transition. Note that this behavior does not depend on the
fh_expire_type attribute and supersedes the specification of the
FH4_VOL_MIGRATION bit, which only affects behavior when
fs_locations_info is not available.
When there is cooperation in filehandle assignment, the two file
systems are reported as being in the same handle classes. In this
case, persistent filehandles remain valid after the file system
transition, while volatile filehandles (excluding those that are only
volatile due to the FH4_VOL_MIGRATION bit) are subject to expiration
on the target server.
8.3. Updated Section 11.7.4 of [RFC5661] entitled "Fileids and File
System Transitions"
In NFSv4.0, the issue of continuity of fileids in the event of a file
system transition was not addressed. The general expectation had
been that in situations in which the two file system instances are
created by a single vendor using some sort of file system image copy,
fileids would be consistent across the transition, while in the
analogous multi-vendor transitions they would not. This poses
difficulties, especially for the client without special knowledge of
the transition mechanisms adopted by the server. Note that although
fileid is not a REQUIRED attribute, many servers support fileids and
many clients provide APIs that depend on fileids.
It is important to note that while clients themselves may have no
trouble with a fileid changing as a result of a file system
transition event, applications do typically have access to the fileid
(e.g., via stat). The result is that an application may work
perfectly well if there is no file system instance transition or if
any such transition is among instances created by a single vendor,
yet be unable to deal with the situation in which a multi-vendor
transition occurs at the wrong time.
Providing the same fileids in a multi-vendor (multiple server
vendors) environment has generally been held to be quite difficult.
While there is work to be done, it needs to be pointed out that this
difficulty is partly self-imposed. Servers have typically identified
fileid with inode number, i.e. with a quantity used to find the file
in question. This identification poses special difficulties for
migration of a file system between vendors where assigning the same
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
index to a given file may not be possible. Note here that a fileid
is not required to be useful to find the file in question, only that
it is unique within the given file system. Servers prepared to
accept a fileid as a single piece of metadata and store it apart from
the value used to index the file information can relatively easily
maintain a fileid value across a migration event, allowing a truly
transparent migration event.
In any case, where servers can provide continuity of fileids, they
should, and the client should be able to find out that such
continuity is available and take appropriate action. Information
about the continuity (or lack thereof) of fileids across a file
system transition is represented by specifying whether the file
systems in question are of the same fileid class.
Note that when consistent fileids do not exist across a transition
(either because there is no continuity of fileids or because fileid
is not a supported attribute on one of instances involved), and there
are no reliable filehandles across a transition event (either because
there is no filehandle continuity or because the filehandles are
volatile), the client is in a position where it cannot verify that
files it was accessing before the transition are the same objects.
It is forced to assume that no object has been renamed, and, unless
there are guarantees that provide this (e.g., the file system is
read-only), problems for applications may occur. Therefore, use of
such configurations should be limited to situations where the
problems that this may cause can be tolerated.
8.4. Updated section 11.7.5 of [RFC5661] entitled "Fsids and File
System Transitions"
Since fsids are generally only unique on a per-server basis, it is
likely that they will change during a file system transition.
Clients should not make the fsids received from the server visible to
applications since they may not be globally unique, and because they
may change during a file system transition event. Applications are
best served if they are isolated from such transitions to the extent
possible.
Although normally a single source file system will transition to a
single target file system, there is a provision for splitting a
single source file system into multiple target file systems, by
specifying the FSLI4F_MULTI_FS flag.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
8.4.1. Updated section 11.7.5.1 of [RFC5661] entitled "File System
Splitting"
When a file system transition is made and the fs_locations_info
indicates that the file system in question might be split into
multiple file systems (via the FSLI4F_MULTI_FS flag), the client
SHOULD do GETATTRs to determine the fsid attribute on all known
objects within the file system undergoing transition to determine the
new file system boundaries.
Clients might choose to maintain the fsids passed to existing
applications by mapping all of the fsids for the descendant file
systems to the common fsid used for the original file system.
Splitting a file system can be done on a transition between file
systems of the same fileid class, since the fact that fileids are
unique within the source file system ensure they will be unique in
each of the target file systems.
8.5. Updated Section 11.7.6 of [RFC5661] entitled "The Change Attribute
and File System Transitions"
Since the change attribute is defined as a server-specific one,
change attributes fetched from one server are normally presumed to be
invalid on another server. Such a presumption is troublesome since
it would invalidate all cached change attributes, requiring
refetching. Even more disruptive, the absence of any assured
continuity for the change attribute means that even if the same value
is retrieved on refetch, no conclusions can be drawn as to whether
the object in question has changed. The identical change attribute
could be merely an artifact of a modified file with a different
change attribute construction algorithm, with that new algorithm just
happening to result in an identical change value.
When the two file systems have consistent change attribute formats,
and this fact is communicated to the client by reporting in the same
change class, the client may assume a continuity of change attribute
construction and handle this situation just as it would be handled
without any file system transition.
8.6. Updated Section 11.7.8 of [RFC5661] entitled "Write Verifiers and
File System Transitions"
In a file system transition, the two file systems might be clustered
in the handling of unstably written data. When this is the case, and
the two file systems belong to the same write-verifier class, write
verifiers returned from one system may be compared to those returned
by the other and superfluous writes avoided.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
When two file systems belong to different write-verifier classes, any
verifier generated by one must not be compared to one provided by the
other. Instead, the two verifiers should be treated as not equal
even when the values are identical.
8.7. Updated Section 11.7.9 of [RFC5661] entitled "Readdir Cookies and
Verifiers and File System Transitions)"
In a file system transition, the two file systems might be consistent
in their handling of READDIR cookies and verifiers. When this is the
case, and the two file systems belong to the same readdir class,
READDIR cookies and verifiers from one system may be recognized by
the other and READDIR operations started on one server may be validly
continued on the other, simply by presenting the cookie and verifier
returned by a READDIR operation done on the first file system to the
second.
When two file systems belong to different readdir classes, any
READDIR cookie and verifier generated by one is not valid on the
second, and must not be presented to that server by the client. The
client should act as if the verifier was rejected.
8.8. Updated Section 11.7.10 of [RFC5661] entitled "File System Data
and File System Transitions"
When multiple replicas exist and are used simultaneously or in
succession by a client, applications using them will normally expect
that they contain either the same data or data that is consistent
with the normal sorts of changes that are made by other clients
updating the data of the file system (with metadata being the same to
the degree indicated by the fs_locations_info attribute). However,
when multiple file systems are presented as replicas of one another,
the precise relationship between the data of one and the data of
another is not, as a general matter, specified by the NFSv4.1
protocol. It is quite possible to present as replicas file systems
where the data of those file systems is sufficiently different that
some applications have problems dealing with the transition between
replicas. The namespace will typically be constructed so that
applications can choose an appropriate level of support, so that in
one position in the namespace a varied set of replicas will be
listed, while in another only those that are up-to-date may be
considered replicas. The protocol does define three special cases of
the relationship among replicas to be specified by the server and
relied upon by clients:
o When multiple replicas exist and are used simultaneously by a
client (see the FSLIB4_CLSIMUL definition within
fs_locations_info), they must designate the same data. Where file
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
systems are writable, a change made on one instance must be
visible on all instances, immediately upon the earlier of the
return of the modifying requester or the visibility of that change
on any of the associated replicas. This allows a client to use
these replicas simultaneously without any special adaptation to
the fact that there are multiple replicas, beyond adapting to the
fact that locks obtained on one replica are maintained separately
(i.e. under a different client ID). In this case, locks (whether
share reservations or byte-range locks) and delegations obtained
on one replica are immediately reflected on all replicas, in the
sense that access from all other servers is prevented regardless
of the replica used. However, because the servers are not
required to treat two associated client IDs as representing the
same client, it is best to access each file using only a single
client ID.
o When one replica is designated as the successor instance to
another existing instance after return NFS4ERR_MOVED (i.e., the
case of migration), the client may depend on the fact that all
changes written to stable storage on the original instance are
written to stable storage of the successor (uncommitted writes are
dealt with in Section 8.6 above).
o Where a file system is not writable but represents a read-only
copy (possibly periodically updated) of a writable file system,
clients have similar requirements with regard to the propagation
of updates. They may need a guarantee that any change visible on
the original file system instance must be immediately visible on
any replica before the client transitions access to that replica,
in order to avoid any possibility that a client, in effecting a
transition to a replica, will see any reversion in file system
state. The specific means of this guarantee varies based on the
value of the fss_type field that is reported as part of the
fs_status attribute (see Section 11.11 of [RFC5661]). Since these
file systems are presumed to be unsuitable for simultaneous use,
there is no specification of how locking is handled; in general,
locks obtained on one file system will be separate from those on
others. Since these are expected to be read-only file systems,
this is not likely to pose an issue for clients or applications.
8.9. Updated Section 11.7.7 of [RFC5661] entitled "Lock State and File
System Transitions"
While accessing a file system, clients obtain locks enforced by the
server which may prevent actions by other clients that are
inconsistent with those locks.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
When access is transferred between replicas, clients need to be
assured that the actions disallowed by holding these locks cannot
have occurred during the transition. This can be ensured by the
methods below. Unless at least one of these is implemented, clients
will not be assured of continuity of lock possession across a
migration event.
o Providing the client an opportunity to re-obtain his locks via a
per-fs grace period on the destination server. Because the lock
reclaim mechanism was originally defined to support server reboot,
it implicitly assumes that file handles will on reclaim will be
the same as those at open. In the case of migration, this
requires that source and destination servers use the same
filehandles, as evidenced by using the same server scope (see
Section 13.2 of the current document) or by showing this agreement
using fs_locations_info (see Section 8.2 above).
o Locking state can be transferred as part of the transition by
providing Transparent State Migration as described in Section 9 of
the current document.
Of these, Transparent State Migration provides the smoother
experience for clients in that there is no grace-period-based delay
before new locks can be obtained. However, it requires a greater
degree of inter-server co-ordination. In general, the servers taking
part in migration are free to provide either facility. However, when
the filehandles can differ across the migration event, Transparent
State Migration is the only available means of providing the needed
functionality.
It should be noted that these two methods are not mutually exclusive
and that a server might well provide both. In particular, if there
is some circumstance preventing a specific lock from being
transferred transparently, the destination server can allow it to be
reclaimed, by implementing a per-fs grace period for the migrated
file system.
9. New section to be added after Section 11.11 of [RFC5661] to be
entitled "Transferring State upon Migration"
When the transition is a result of a server-initiated decision to
transition access and the source and destination servers have
implemented appropriate co-operation, it is possible to:
o Transfer locking state from the source to the destination server,
in a fashion similar to that provided by Transparent State
Migration in NFSv4.0, as described in [RFC7931]. Server
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
responsibilities are described in Section 11.2 of the current
document.
o Transfer session state from the source to the destination server.
Server responsibilities in effecting such a transfer are described
in Section 11.3 of the current document.
The means by which the client determines which of these transfer
events has occurred are described in Section 10 of the current
document.
9.1. Only sub-section within new section to be added to [RFC5661] to be
entitled "Transparent State Migration and pNFS"
When pNFS is involved, the protocol is capable of supporting:
o Migration of the Metadata Server (MDS), leaving the Data Servers
(DS's) in place.
o Migration of the file system as a whole, including the MDS and
associated DS's.
o Replacement of one DS by another.
o Migration of a pNFS file system to one in which pNFS is not used.
o Migration of a file system not using pNFS to one in which layouts
are available.
Note that migration per se is only involved in the transfer of the
MDS function. Although the servicing of a layout may be transferred
from one data server to another, this not done using the file system
location attributes. The MDS can effect such transfers by recalling/
revoking existing layouts and granting new ones on a different data
server.
Migration of the MDS function is directly supported by Transparent
State Migration. Layout state will normally be transparently
transferred, just as other state is. As a result, Transparent State
Migration provides a framework in which, given appropriate inter-MDS
data transfer, one MDS can be substituted for another.
Migration of the file system function as a whole can be accomplished
by recalling all layouts as part of the initial phase of the
migration process. As a result, IO will be done through the MDS
during the migration process, and new layouts can be granted once the
client is interacting with the new MDS. An MDS can also effect this
sort of transition by revoking all layouts as part of Transparent
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
State Migration, as long as the client is notified about the loss of
locking state.
In order to allow migration to a file system on which pNFS is not
supported, clients need to be prepared for a situation in which
layouts are not available or supported on the destination file system
and so direct IO requests to the destination server, rather than
depending on layouts being available.
Replacement of one DS by another is not addressed by migration as
such but can be effected by an MDS recalling layouts for the DS to be
replaced and issuing new ones to be served by the successor DS.
Migration may transfer a file system from a server which does not
support pNFS to one which does. In order to properly adapt to this
situation, clients which support pNFS, but function adequately in its
absence should check for pNFS support when a file system is migrated
and be prepared to use pNFS when support is available on the
destination.
10. New section to be added second after Section 11.11 of [RFC5661] to
be entitled "Client Responsibilities when Access is Transitioned"
For a client to respond to an access transition, it must become aware
of it. The ways in which this can happen are discussed in
Section 10.1 which discusses indications that a specific file system
access path has transitioned as well as situations in which
additional activity is necessary to determine the set of file systems
that have been migrated. Section 10.2 goes on to complete the
discussion of how the set of migrated file systems might be
determined. Sections 10.3 through 10.5 discuss how the client should
deal with each transition it becomes aware of, either directly or as
a result of migration discovery.
The following terms are used to describe client activities:
o "Transition recovery" refers to the process of restoring access to
a file system on which NFS4ERR_MOVED was received.
o "Migration recovery" to that subset of transition recovery which
applies when the file system has migrated to a different replica.
o "Migration discovery" refers to the process of determining which
file system(s) have been migrated. It is necessary to avoid a
situation in which leases could expire when a file system is not
accessed for a long period of time, since a client unaware of the
migration might be referencing an unmigrated file system and not
renewing the lease associated with the migrated file system.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
10.1. First sub-section within new section to be added to [RFC5661] to
be entitled "Client Transition Notifications"
When there is a change in the network access path which a client is
to use to access a file system, there are a number of related status
indications with which clients need to deal:
o If an attempt is made to use or return a filehandle within a file
system that is no longer accessible at the address previously used
to access it, the error NFS4ERR_MOVED is returned.
Exceptions are made to allow such file handles to be used when
interrogating a file system location attribute. This enables a
client to determine a new replica's location or a new network
access path.
This condition continues on subsequent attempts to access the file
system in question. The only way the client can avoid the error
is to cease accessing the file system in question at its old
server location and access it instead using a different address at
which it is now available.
o Whenever a SEQUENCE operation is sent by a client to a server
which generated state held on that client which is associated with
a file system that is no longer accessible on the server at which
it was previously available, the response will contain a lease-
migrated indication, with the SEQ4_STATUS_LEASE_MOVED status bit
being set.
This condition continues until the client acknowledges the
notification by fetching a file system location attribute for the
file system whose network access path is being changed. When
there are multiple such file systems, a location attribute for
each such file system needs to be fetched. The location attribute
for all migrated file system needs to be fetched in order to clear
the condition. Even after the condition is cleared, the client
needs to respond by using the location information to access the
file system at its new location to ensure that leases are not
needlessly expired.
Unlike the case of NFSv4.0, in which the corresponding conditions are
both errors and thus mutually exclusive, in NFSv4.1 the client can,
and often will, receive both indications on the same request. As a
result, implementations need to address the question of how to co-
ordinate the necessary recovery actions when both indications arrive
in the response to the same request. It should be noted that when
processing an NFSv4 COMPOUND, the server will normally decide whether
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
SEQ4_STATUS_LEASE_MOVED is to be set before it determines which file
system will be referenced or whether NFS4ERR_MOVED is to be returned.
Since these indications are not mutually exclusive in NFSv4.1, the
following combinations are possible results when a COMPOUND is
issued:
o The COMPOUND status is NFS4ERR_MOVED and SEQ4_STATUS_LEASE_MOVED
is asserted.
In this case, transition recovery is required. While it is
possible that migration discovery is needed in addition, it is
likely that only the accessed file system has transitioned. In
any case, because addressing NFS4ERR_MOVED is necessary to allow
the rejected requests to be processed on the target, dealing with
it will typically have priority over migration discovery.
o The COMPOUND status is NFS4ERR_MOVED and SEQ4_STATUS_LEASE_MOVED
is clear.
In this case, transition recovery is also required. It is clear
that migration discovery is not needed to find file systems that
have been migrated other that the one returning NFS4ERR_MOVED.
Cases in which this result can arise include a referral or a
migration for which there is no associated locking state. This
can also arise in cases in which an access path transition other
than migration occurs within the same server. In such a case,
there is no need to set SEQ4_STATUS_LEASE_MOVED, since the lease
remains associated with the current server even though the access
path has changed.
o The COMPOUND status is not NFS4ERR_MOVED and
SEQ4_STATUS_LEASE_MOVED is asserted.
In this case, no transition recovery activity is required on the
file system(s) accessed by the request. However, to prevent
avoidable lease expiration, migration discovery needs to be done
o The COMPOUND status is not NFS4ERR_MOVED and
SEQ4_STATUS_LEASE_MOVED is clear.
In this case, neither transition-related activity nor migration
discovery is required.
Note that the specified actions only need to be taken if they are not
already going on. For example, when NFS4ERR_MOVED is received when
accessing a file system for which transition recovery already going
on, the client merely waits for that recovery to be completed while
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
the receipt of SEQ4_STATUS_LEASE_MOVED indication only needs to
initiate migration discovery for a server if it is not going on for
that server.
The fact that a lease-migrated condition does not result in an error
in NFSv4.1 has a number of important consequences. In addition to
the fact, discussed above, that the two indications are not mutually
exclusive, there are number of issues that are important in
considering implementation of migration discovery, as discussed in
Section 10.2.
Because of the absence of NFSV4ERR_LEASE_MOVED, it is possible for
file systems whose access path has not changed to be successfully
accessed on a given server even though recovery is necessary for
other file systems on the same server. As a result, access can go on
while,
o The migration discovery process is going on for that server.
o The transition recovery process is going on for on other file
systems connected to that server.
10.2. Second sub-section within new section to be added to [RFC5661] to
be entitled "Performing Migration Discovery"
Migration discovery can be performed in the same context as
transition recovery, allowing recovery for each migrated file system
to be invoked as it is discovered. Alternatively, it may be done in
a separate migration discovery thread, allowing migration discovery
to be done in parallel with one or more instances of transition
recovery.
In either case, because the lease-migrated indication does not result
in an error. other access to file systems on the server can proceed
normally, with the possibility that further such indications will be
received, raising the issue of how such indications are to be dealt
with. In general,
o No action needs to be taken for such indications received by the
those performing migration discovery, since continuation of that
work will address the issue.
o In other cases in which migration discovery is currently being
performed, nothing further needs to be done to respond to such
lease migration indications, as long as one can be certain that
the migration discovery process would deal with those indications.
See below for details.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o For such indications received in all other contexts, the
appropriate response is to initiate or otherwise provide for the
execution of migration discovery for file systems associated with
the server IP address returning the indication.
This leaves a potential difficulty in situations in which the
migration discovery process is near to completion but is still
operating. One should not ignore a LEASE_MOVED indication if the
migration discovery process is not able to respond to the discovery
of additional migrating file systems without additional aid. A
further complexity relevant in addressing such situations is that a
lease-migrated indication may reflect the server's state at the time
the SEQUENCE operation was processed, which may be different from
that in effect at the time the response is received. Because new
migration events may occur at any time, and because a LEASE_MOVED
indication may reflect the situation in effect a considerable time
before the indication is received, special care needs to be taken to
ensure that LEASE_MOVED indications are not inappropriately ignored.
A useful approach to this issue involves the use of separate
externally-visible migration discovery states for each server.
Separate values could represent the various possible states for the
migration discovery process for a server:
o non-operation, in which migration discovery is not being performed
o normal operation, in which there is an ongoing scan for migrated
file systems.
o completion/verification of migration discovery processing, in
which the possible completion of migration discovery processing
needs to be verified.
Given that framework, migration discovery processing would proceed as
follows.
o While in the normal-operation state, the thread performing
discovery would fetch, for successive file systems known to the
client on the server being worked on, a file system location
attribute plus the fs_status attribute.
o If the fs_status attribute indicates that the file system is a
migrated one (i.e. fss_absent is true and fss_type !=
STATUS4_REFERRAL) and thus that it is likely that the fetch of the
file system location attribute has cleared one the file systems
contributing to the lease-migrated indication.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o In cases in which that happened, the thread cannot know whether
the lease-migrated indication has been cleared and so it enters
the completion/verification state and proceeds to issue a COMPOUND
to see if the LEASE_MOVED indication has been cleared.
o When the discovery process is in the completion/verification
state, if others request get a lease-migrated indication they note
that it was received and the existence of such indications is used
when the request completes, as described below.
When the request used in the completion/verification state completes:
o If a lease-migrated indication is returned, the discovery
continues normally. Note that this is so even if all file systems
have traversed, since new migrations could have occurred while the
process was going on.
o Otherwise, if there is any record that other requests saw a lease-
migrated indication while the request was going on, that record is
cleared and the verification request retried. The discovery
process remains in completion/verification state.
o If there have been no lease-migrated indications, the work of
migration discovery is considered completed and it enters the non-
operating state. Once it enters this state, subsequent lease-
migrated indication will trigger a new migration discovery
process.
It should be noted that the process described above is not guaranteed
to terminate, as a long series of new migration events might
continually delay the clearing of the LEASE_MOVED indication. To
prevent unnecessary lease expiration, it is appropriate for clients
to use the discovery of migrations to effect lease renewal
immediately, rather than waiting for clearing of the LEASE_MOVED
indication when the complete set of migrations is available.
10.3. Third sub-section within new section to be added to [RFC5661] to
be entitled "Overview of Client Response to NFS4ERR_MOVED"
This section outlines a way in which a client that receives
NFS4ERR_MOVED can effect transition recovery by using a new server or
server endpoint if one is available. As part of that process, it
will determine:
o Whether the NFS4ERR_MOVED indicates migration has occurred, or
whether it indicates another sort of file system access transition
as discussed in Section 7 above.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o In the case of migration, whether Transparent State Migration has
occurred.
o Whether any state has been lost during the process of Transparent
State Migration.
o Whether sessions have been transferred as part of Transparent
State Migration.
During the first phase of this process, the client proceeds to
examine file system location entries to find the initial network
address it will use to continue access to the file system or its
replacement. For each location entry that the client examines, the
process consists of five steps:
1. Performing an EXCHANGE_ID directed at the location address. This
operation is used to register the client-owner with the server,
to obtain a client ID to be use subsequently to communicate with
it, to obtain that client ID's confirmation status, and to
determine server_owner and scope for the purpose of determining
if the entry is trunkable with that previously being used to
access the file system (i.e. that it represents another network
access path to the same file system and can share locking state
with it).
2. Making an initial determination of whether migration has
occurred. The initial determination will be based on whether the
EXCHANGE_ID results indicate that the current location element is
server-trunkable with that used to access the file system when
access was terminated by receiving NFS4ERR_MOVED. If it is, then
migration has not occurred and the transition is dealt with, at
least initially, as one involving continued access to the same
file system on the same server through a new network address.
3. Obtaining access to existing session state or creating new
sessions. How this is done depends on the initial determination
of whether migration has occurred and can be done as described in
Section 10.4 below in the case of migration or as described in
Section 10.5 below in the case of a network address transfer
without migration.
4. Verification of the trunking relationship assumed in step 2 as
discussed in Section 2.10.5.1 of [RFC5661]. Although this step
will generally confirm the initial determination, it is possible
for verification to fail with the result that an initial
determination that a network address shift (without migration)
has occurred may be invalidated and migration determined to have
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
occurred. There is no need to redo step 3 above, since it will
be possible to continue use of the session established already.
5. Obtaining access to existing locking state and/or reobtaining it.
How this is done depends on the final determination of whether
migration has occurred and can be done as described below in
Section 10.4 in the case of migration or as described in
Section 10.5 in the case of a network address transfer without
migration.
Once the initial address has been determined, clients are free to
apply an abbreviated process to find additional addresses trunkable
with it (clients may seek session-trunkable or server-trunkable
addresses depending on whether they support clientid trunking).
During this later phase of the process, further location entries are
examined using the abbreviated procedure specified below:
1. Before the EXCHANGE_ID, the fs name of the location entry is
examined and if it does not match that currently being used, the
entry is ignored. otherwise, one proceeds as specified by step 1
above,.
2. In the case that the network address is session-trunkable with
one used previously a BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION is used to access that
session using the new network address. Otherwise, or if the bind
operation fails, a CREATE_SESSION is done.
3. The verification procedure referred to in step 4 above is used.
However, if it fails, the entry is ignored and the next available
entry is used.
10.4. Fourth sub-section within new section to be added to [RFC5661] to
be entitled "Obtaining Access to Sessions and State after
Migration"
In the event that migration has occurred, migration recovery will
involve determining whether Transparent State Migration has occurred.
This decision is made based on the client ID returned by the
EXCHANGE_ID and the reported confirmation status.
o If the client ID is an unconfirmed client ID not previously known
to the client, then Transparent State Migration has not occurred.
o If the client ID is a confirmed client ID previously known to the
client, then any transferred state would have been merged with an
existing client ID representing the client to the destination
server. In this state merger case, Transparent State Migration
might or might not have occurred and a determination as to whether
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
it has occurred is deferred until sessions are established and the
client is ready to begin state recovery.
o If the client ID is a confirmed client ID not previously known to
the client, then the client can conclude that the client ID was
transferred as part of Transparent State Migration. In this
transferred client ID case, Transparent State Migration has
occurred although some state might have been lost.
Once the client ID has been obtained, it is necessary to obtain
access to sessions to continue communication with the new server. In
any of the cases in which Transparent State Migration has occurred,
it is possible that a session was transferred as well. To deal with
that possibility, clients can, after doing the EXCHANGE_ID, issue a
BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION to connect the transferred session to a
connection to the new server. If that fails, it is an indication
that the session was not transferred and that a new session needs to
be created to take its place.
In some situations, it is possible for a BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION to
succeed without session migration having occurred. If state merger
has taken place then the associated client ID may have already had a
set of existing sessions, with it being possible that the sessionid
of a given session is the same as one that might have been migrated.
In that event, a BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION might succeed, even though
there could have been no migration of the session with that
sessionid.
Once the client has determined the initial migration status, and
determined that there was a shift to a new server, it needs to re-
establish its locking state, if possible. To enable this to happen
without loss of the guarantees normally provided by locking, the
destination server needs to implement a per-fs grace period in all
cases in which lock state was lost, including those in which
Transparent State Migration was not implemented.
Clients need to be deal with the following cases:
o In the state merger case, it is possible that the server has not
attempted Transparent State Migration, in which case state may
have been lost without it being reflected in the SEQ4_STATUS bits.
To determine whether this has happened, the client can use
TEST_STATEID to check whether the stateids created on the source
server are still accessible on the destination server. Once a
single stateid is found to have been successfully transferred, the
client can conclude that Transparent State Migration was begun and
any failure to transport all of the stateids will be reflected in
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
the SEQ4_STATUS bits. Otherwise, Transparent State Migration has
not occurred.
o In a case in which Transparent State Migration has not occurred,
the client can use the per-fs grace period provided by the
destination server to reclaim locks that were held on the source
server.
o In a case in which Transparent State Migration has occurred, and
no lock state was lost (as shown by SEQ4_STATUS flags), no lock
reclaim is necessary.
o In a case in which Transparent State Migration has occurred, and
some lock state was lost (as shown by SEQ4_STATUS flags), existing
stateids need to be checked for validity using TEST_STATEID, and
reclaim used to re-establish any that were not transferred.
For all of the cases above, RECLAIM_COMPLETE with an rca_one_fs value
of TRUE needs to be done before normal use of the file system
including obtaining new locks for the file system. This applies even
if no locks were lost and there was no need for any to be reclaimed.
10.5. Fifth sub-section within new section to be added to [RFC5661] to
be entitled "Obtaining Access to Sessions and State after Network
Address Transfer"
The case in which there is a transfer to a new network address
without migration is similar to that described in Section 10.4 above
in that there is a need to obtain access to needed sessions and
locking state. However, the details are simpler and will vary
depending on the type of trunking between the address receiving
NFS4ERR_MOVED and that to which the transfer is to be made
To make a session available for use, a BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION should be
used to obtain access to the session previously in use. Only if this
fails, should a CREATE_SESSION be done. While this procedure mirrors
that in Section 10.4 above, there is an important difference in that
preservation of the session is not purely optional but depends on the
type of trunking.
Access to appropriate locking state should need no actions beyond
access to the session. However, the SEQ4_STATUS bits need to be
checked for lost locking state, including the need to reclaim locks
after a server reboot.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
11. New section to be added third after Section 11.11 of [RFC5661] to
be entitled "Server Responsibilities Upon Migration"
In the event of file system migration, when the client connects to
the destination server, it needs to be able to provide the client
continued to access the files it had open on the source server.
There are two ways to provide this:
o By provision of an fs-specific grace period, allowing the client
the ability to reclaim its locks, in a fashion similar to what
would have been done in the case of recovery from a server
restart. See Section 11.1 for a more complete discussion.
o By implementing Transparent State Migration possibly in connection
with session migration, the server can provide the client
immediate access to the state built up on the source server, on
the destination.
These features are discussed separately in Sections 11.2 and 11.3,
which discuss Transparent State Migration and session migration
respectively.
All the features described above can involve transfer of lock-related
information between source and destination servers. In some cases
this transfer is a necessary part of the implementation while in
other cases it is a helpful implementation aid which servers might or
might not use. The sub-sections below discuss the information which
would transferred but do not define the specifics of the transfer
protocol. This is left as an implementation choice although
standards in this area could be developed at a later time.
11.1. First sub-section within new section to be added to [RFC5661] to
be entitled "Server Responsibilities in Effecting State Reclaim
after Migration"
In this case, destination server need have no knowledge of the locks
held on the source server, but relies on the clients to accurately
report (via reclaim operations) the locks previously held, not
allowing new locks to be granted on migrated file system until the
grace period expires.
During this grace period clients have the opportunity to use reclaim
operations to obtain locks for file system objects within the
migrated file system, in the same way that they do when recovering
from server restart, and the servers typically rely on clients to
accurately report their locks, although they have the option of
subjecting these requests to verification. If the clients only
reclaim locks held on the source server, no conflict can arise. Once
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
the client has reclaimed its locks, it indicates the completion of
lock reclamation by performing a RECLAIM_COMPLETE specifying
rca_one_fs as TRUE.
While it is not necessary for source and destination servers to co-
operate to transfer information about locks, implementations are
well-advised to consider transferring the following useful
information:
o If information about the set of clients that have locking state
for the transferred file system is made available, the destination
server will be able to terminate the grace period once all such
clients have reclaimed their locks, allowing normal locking
activity to resume earlier than it would have otherwise.
o Locking summary information for individual clients (at various
possible levels of detail) can detect some instances in which
clients do not accurately represent the locks held on the source
server.
11.2. Second sub-section within new section to be added to [RFC5661] to
be entitled "Server Responsibilities in Effecting Transparent
State Migration"
The basic responsibility of the source server in effecting
Transparent State Migration is to make available to the destination
server a description of each piece of locking state associated with
the file system being migrated. In addition to client id string and
verifier, the source server needs to provide, for each stateid:
o The stateid including the current sequence value.
o The associated client ID.
o The handle of the associated file.
o The type of the lock, such as open, byte-range lock, delegation,
or layout.
o For locks such as opens and byte-range locks, there will be
information about the owner(s) of the lock.
o For recallable/revocable lock types, the current recall status
needs to be included.
o For each lock type, there will be type-specific information, such
as share and deny modes for opens and type and byte ranges for
byte-range locks and layouts.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
A further server responsibility concerns locks that are revoked or
otherwise lost during the process of file system migration. Because
locks that appear to be lost during the process of migration will be
reclaimed by the client, the servers have to take steps to ensure
that locks revoked soon before or soon after migration are not
inadvertently allowed to be reclaimed in situations in which the
continuity of lock possession cannot be assured.
o For locks lost on the source but whose loss has not yet been
acknowledged by the client (by using FREE_STATEID), the
destination must be aware of this loss so that it can deny a
request to reclaim them.
o For locks lost on the destination after the state transfer but
before the client's RECLAIM_COMPLTE is done, the destination
server should note these and not allow them to be reclaimed.
An additional responsibility of the cooperating servers concerns
situations in which a stateid cannot be transferred transparently
because it conflicts with an existing stateid held by the client and
associated with a different file system. In this case there are two
valid choices:
o Treat the transfer, as in NFSv4.0, as one without Transparent
State Migration. In this case, conflicting locks cannot be
granted until the client does a RECLAIM_COMPLETE, after reclaiming
the locks it had, with the exception of reclaims denied because
they were attempts to reclaim locks that had been lost.
o Implement Transparent State Migration, except for the lock with
the conflicting stateid. In this case, the client will be aware
of a lost lock (through the SEQ4_STATUS flags) and be allowed to
reclaim it.
When transferring state between the source and destination, the
issues discussed in Section 7.2 of [RFC7931] must still be attended
to. In this case, the use of NFS4ERR_DELAY may still necessary in
NFSv4.1, as it was in NFSv4.0, to prevent locking state changing
while it is being transferred.
There are a number of important differences in the NFS4.1 context:
o The absence of RELEASE_LOCKOWNER means that the one case in which
an operation could not be deferred by use of NFS4ERR_DELAY no
longer exists.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o Sequencing of operations is no longer done using owner-based
operation sequences numbers. Instead, sequencing is session-
based
As a result, when sessions are not transferred, the techniques
discussed in Section 7.2 of [RFC7931] are adequate and will not be
further discussed.
11.3. Third sub-section within new section to be added to [RFC5661] to
be entitled "Server Responsibilities in Effecting Session
Transfer"
The basic responsibility of the source server in effecting session
transfer is to make available to the destination server a description
of the current state of each slot with the session, including:
o The last sequence value received for that slot.
o Whether there is cached reply data for the last request executed
and, if so, the cached reply.
When sessions are transferred, there are a number of issues that pose
challenges in terms of making the transferred state unmodifiable
during the period it is gathered up and transferred to the
destination server.
o A single session may be used to access multiple file systems, not
all of which are being transferred.
o Requests made on a session may, even if rejected, affect the state
of the session by advancing the sequence number associated with
the slot used.
As a result, when the file system state might otherwise be considered
unmodifiable, the client might have any number of in-flight requests,
each of which is capable of changing session state, which may be of a
number of types:
1. Those requests that were processed on the migrating file system,
before migration began.
2. Those requests which got the error NFS4ERR_DELAY because the file
system being accessed was in the process of being migrated.
3. Those requests which got the error NFS4ERR_MOVED because the file
system being accessed had been migrated.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
4. Those requests that accessed the migrating file system, in order
to obtain location or status information.
5. Those requests that did not reference the migrating file system.
It should be noted that the history of any particular slot is likely
to include a number of these request classes. In the case in which a
session which is migrated is used by file systems other than the one
migrated, requests of class 5 may be common and be the last request
processed, for many slots.
Since session state can change even after the locking state has been
fixed as part of the migration process, the session state known to
the client could be different from that on the destination server,
which necessarily reflects the session state on the source server, at
an earlier time. In deciding how to deal with this situation, it is
helpful to distinguish between two sorts of behavioral consequences
of the choice of initial sequence ID values.
o The error NFS4ERR_SEQ_MISORDERED is returned when the sequence ID
in a request is neither equal to the last one seen for the current
slot nor the next greater one.
In view of the difficulty of arriving at a mutually acceptable
value for the correct last sequence value at the point of
migration, it may be necessary for the server to show some degree
of forbearance, when the sequence ID is one that would be
considered unacceptable if session migration were not involved.
o Returning the cached reply for a previously executed request when
the sequence ID in the request matches the last value recorded for
the slot.
In the cases in which an error is returned and there is no
possibility of any non-idempotent operation having been executed,
it may not be necessary to adhere to this as strictly as might be
proper if session migration were not involved. For example, the
fact that the error NFS4ERR_DELAY was returned may not assist the
client in any material way, while the fact that NFS4ERR_MOVED was
returned by the source server may not be relevant when the request
was reissued, directed to the destination server.
One part of the necessary adaptation to these sorts of issues would
restrict enforcement of normal slot sequence enforcement semantics
until the client itself, by issuing a request using a particular slot
on the destination server, established the new starting sequence for
that slot on the migrated session.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
An important issue is that the specification needs to take note of
all potential COMPOUNDs, even if they might be unlikely in practice.
For example, a COMPOUND is allowed to access multiple file systems
and might perform non-idempotent operations in some of them before
accessing a file system being migrated. Also, a COMPOUND may return
considerable data in the response, before being rejected with
NFS4ERR_DELAY or NFS4ERR_MOVED, and may in addition be marked as
sa_cachethis.
To address these issues, a destination server MAY do any of the
following when implementing session transfer.
o Avoid enforcing any sequencing semantics for a particular slot
until the client has established the starting sequence for that
slot on the destination server.
o For each slot, avoid returning a cached reply returning
NFS4ERR_DELAY or NFS4ERR_MOVED until the client has established
the starting sequence for that slot on the destination server.
o Until the client has established the starting sequence for a
particular slot on the destination server, avoid reporting
NFS4ERR_SEQ_MISORDERED or return a cached reply returning
NFS4ERR_DELAY or NFS4ERR_MOVED, where the reply consists solely of
a series of operations where the response is NFS4_OK until the
final error.
12. fs_locations_info
12.1. Updates to treatment of fs_locations_info
Various elements of the fs_locations_info attribute contain
information that applies to either a specific file system replica or
to a network path or set of network paths used to access such a
replica. The existing treatment of fs_locations info (in
Section 11.10 of [RFC5661]) does not clearly distinguish these cases,
in part because the document did not clearly distinguish replicas
from the paths used to access them.
In addition, special clarification needed to be provided for:
o With regard to the handling of FSLI4GF_GOING, it needs to be made
clear that this only applies to the unavailability of a replica
rather than to a path to access a replica.
o In describing the appropriate value for a server to use for
fli_valid_for, it needs to be made clear that there is no need for
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
the client to frequently fetch the fs_locations_info value to be
prepared for shifts in trunking patterns.
o Clarification of the rules for extensions of the fls_info needs to
be provided. The existing treatment reflects the extension model
in effect at the time [RFC5661] was written, and need to be
updated in accordance with the extension model described in
[RFC8178].
12.2. Updated Section 11.10 of [RFC5661] entitled "The Attribute
fs_locations_info"
The fs_locations_info attribute is intended as a more functional
replacement for the fs_locations attribute which will continue to
exist and be supported. Clients can use it to get a more complete
set of data about alternative file system locations, including
additional network paths to access replicas in use and additional
replicas. When the server does not support fs_locations_info,
fs_locations can be used to get a subset of the data. A server that
supports fs_locations_info MUST support fs_locations as well.
There is additional data present in fs_locations_info, that is not
available in fs_locations:
o Attribute continuity information. This information will allow a
client to select a replica that meets the transparency
requirements of the applications accessing the data and to
leverage optimizations due to the server guarantees of attribute
continuity (e.g., if the change attribute of a file of the file
system is continuous between multiple replicas, the client does
not have to invalidate the file's cache when switching to a
different replica).
o File system identity information that indicates when multiple
replicas, from the client's point of view, correspond to the same
target file system, allowing them to be used interchangeably,
without disruption, as distinct synchronized replicas of the same
file data.
Note that having two replicas with common identity information is
distinct from the case of two (trunked) paths to the same replica.
o Information that will bear on the suitability of various replicas,
depending on the use that the client intends. For example, many
applications need an absolutely up-to-date copy (e.g., those that
write), while others may only need access to the most up-to-date
copy reasonably available.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o Server-derived preference information for replicas, which can be
used to implement load-balancing while giving the client the
entire file system list to be used in case the primary fails.
The fs_locations_info attribute is structured similarly to the
fs_locations attribute. A top-level structure (fs_locations_info4)
contains the entire attribute including the root pathname of the file
system and an array of lower-level structures that define replicas
that share a common rootpath on their respective servers. The lower-
level structure in turn (fs_locations_item4) contains a specific
pathname and information on one or more individual network access
paths. For that last lowest level, fs_locations_info has an
fs_locations_server4 structure that contains per-server-replica
information in addition to the file system location entry. This per-
server-replica information includes a nominally opaque array,
fls_info, within which specific pieces of information are located at
the specific indices listed below.
Two fs_location_server4 entries that are within different
fs_location_item4 structures are never trunkable, while two entries
within in the same fs_location_item4 structure might or might not be
trunkable. Two entries that are trunkable will have identical
identity information, although, as noted above, the converse is not
the case.
The attribute will always contain at least a single
fs_locations_server entry. Typically, there will be an entries with
the FS4LIGF_CUR_REQ flag set, although in the case of a referral
there will be no entry with that flag set.
It should be noted that fs_locations_info attributes returned by
servers for various replicas may differ for various reasons. One
server may know about a set of replicas that are not known to other
servers. Further, compatibility attributes may differ. Filehandles
might be of the same class going from replica A to replica B but not
going in the reverse direction. This might happen because the
filehandles are the same, but replica B's server implementation might
not have provision to note and report that equivalence.
The fs_locations_info attribute consists of a root pathname
(fli_fs_root, just like fs_root in the fs_locations attribute),
together with an array of fs_location_item4 structures. The
fs_location_item4 structures in turn consist of a root pathname
(fli_rootpath) together with an array (fli_entries) of elements of
data type fs_locations_server4, all defined as follows.
<CODE BEGINS>
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
/*
* Defines an individual server access path
*/
struct fs_locations_server4 {
int32_t fls_currency;
opaque fls_info<>;
utf8str_cis fls_server;
};
/*
* Byte indices of items within
* fls_info: flag fields, class numbers,
* bytes indicating ranks and orders.
*/
const FSLI4BX_GFLAGS = 0;
const FSLI4BX_TFLAGS = 1;
const FSLI4BX_CLSIMUL = 2;
const FSLI4BX_CLHANDLE = 3;
const FSLI4BX_CLFILEID = 4;
const FSLI4BX_CLWRITEVER = 5;
const FSLI4BX_CLCHANGE = 6;
const FSLI4BX_CLREADDIR = 7;
const FSLI4BX_READRANK = 8;
const FSLI4BX_WRITERANK = 9;
const FSLI4BX_READORDER = 10;
const FSLI4BX_WRITEORDER = 11;
/*
* Bits defined within the general flag byte.
*/
const FSLI4GF_WRITABLE = 0x01;
const FSLI4GF_CUR_REQ = 0x02;
const FSLI4GF_ABSENT = 0x04;
const FSLI4GF_GOING = 0x08;
const FSLI4GF_SPLIT = 0x10;
/*
* Bits defined within the transport flag byte.
*/
const FSLI4TF_RDMA = 0x01;
/*
* Defines a set of replicas sharing
* a common value of the rootpath
* within the corresponding
* single-server namespaces.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
*/
struct fs_locations_item4 {
fs_locations_server4 fli_entries<>;
pathname4 fli_rootpath;
};
/*
* Defines the overall structure of
* the fs_locations_info attribute.
*/
struct fs_locations_info4 {
uint32_t fli_flags;
int32_t fli_valid_for;
pathname4 fli_fs_root;
fs_locations_item4 fli_items<>;
};
/*
* Flag bits in fli_flags.
*/
const FSLI4IF_VAR_SUB = 0x00000001;
typedef fs_locations_info4 fattr4_fs_locations_info;
<CODE ENDS>
As noted above, the fs_locations_info attribute, when supported, may
be requested of absent file systems without causing NFS4ERR_MOVED to
be returned. It is generally expected that it will be available for
both present and absent file systems even if only a single
fs_locations_server4 entry is present, designating the current
(present) file system, or two fs_locations_server4 entries
designating the previous location of an absent file system (the one
just referenced) and its successor location. Servers are strongly
urged to support this attribute on all file systems if they support
it on any file system.
The data presented in the fs_locations_info attribute may be obtained
by the server in any number of ways, including specification by the
administrator or by current protocols for transferring data among
replicas and protocols not yet developed. NFSv4.1 only defines how
this information is presented by the server to the client.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
12.2.1. Updated section 11.10.1 of [RFC5661] entitled "The
fs_locations_server4 Structure"
The fs_locations_server4 structure consists of the following items in
addition to the fls_server field which specifies a network address or
set of addresses to be used to access the specified file system.
Note that both of these items specify attributes of the file system
replica and should not be different when there are multiple
fs_locations_server4 structures for the same replica, each specifying
a network path to the chosen replica.
o An indication of how up-to-date the file system is (fls_currency)
in seconds. This value is relative to the master copy. A
negative value indicates that the server is unable to give any
reasonably useful value here. A value of zero indicates that the
file system is the actual writable data or a reliably coherent and
fully up-to-date copy. Positive values indicate how out-of-date
this copy can normally be before it is considered for update.
Such a value is not a guarantee that such updates will always be
performed on the required schedule but instead serves as a hint
about how far the copy of the data would be expected to be behind
the most up-to-date copy.
o A counted array of one-byte values (fls_info) containing
information about the particular file system instance. This data
includes general flags, transport capability flags, file system
equivalence class information, and selection priority information.
The encoding will be discussed below.
o The server string (fls_server). For the case of the replica
currently being accessed (via GETATTR), a zero-length string MAY
be used to indicate the current address being used for the RPC
call. The fls_server field can also be an IPv4 or IPv6 address,
formatted the same way as an IPv4 or IPv6 address in the "server"
field of the fs_location4 data type (see Section 11.9 of
[RFC5661]).
With the exception of the transport-flag field (at offset
FSLIBX_TFLAGS with the fls_info array), all of this data applies to
the replica specified by the entry, rather that the specific network
path used to access it.
Data within the fls_info array is in the form of 8-bit data items
with constants giving the offsets within the array of various values
describing this particular file system instance. This style of
definition was chosen, in preference to explicit XDR structure
definitions for these values, for a number of reasons.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o The kinds of data in the fls_info array, representing flags, file
system classes, and priorities among sets of file systems
representing the same data, are such that 8 bits provide a quite
acceptable range of values. Even where there might be more than
256 such file system instances, having more than 256 distinct
classes or priorities is unlikely.
o Explicit definition of the various specific data items within XDR
would limit expandability in that any extension within would
require yet another attribute, leading to specification and
implementation clumsiness. In the context of the NFSv4 extension
model in effect at the time fs_locations_info was designed (i.e.
that described in [RFC5661]), this would necessitate a new minor
to effect any Standards Track extension to the data in in
fls_info.
The set of fls_info data is subject to expansion in a future minor
version, or in a Standards Track RFC, within the context of a single
minor version. The server SHOULD NOT send and the client MUST NOT
use indices within the fls_info array or flag bits that are not
defined in Standards Track RFCs.
In light of the new extension model defined in [RFC8178] and the fact
that the individual items within fls_info are not explicitly
referenced in the XDR, the following practices should be followed
when extending or otherwise changing the structure of the data
returned in fls_info within the scope of a single minor version.
o All extensions need to be described by Standards Track documents.
There is no need for such documents to be marked as updating
[RFC5661] or this document.
o It needs to be made clear whether the information in any added
data items applies to the replica specified by the entry or to the
specific network paths specified in the entry.
o There needs to be a reliable way defined to determine whether the
server is aware of the extension. This may be based on the length
field of the fls_info array, but it is more flexible to provide
fs-scope or server-scope attributes to indicate what extensions
are provided.
This encoding scheme can be adapted to the specification of multi-
byte numeric values, even though none are currently defined. If
extensions are made via Standards Track RFCs, multi-byte quantities
will be encoded as a range of bytes with a range of indices, with the
byte interpreted in big-endian byte order. Further, any such index
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
assignments will be constrained by the need for the relevant
quantities not to cross XDR word boundaries.
The fls_info array currently contains:
o Two 8-bit flag fields, one devoted to general file-system
characteristics and a second reserved for transport-related
capabilities.
o Six 8-bit class values that define various file system equivalence
classes as explained below.
o Four 8-bit priority values that govern file system selection as
explained below.
The general file system characteristics flag (at byte index
FSLI4BX_GFLAGS) has the following bits defined within it:
o FSLI4GF_WRITABLE indicates that this file system target is
writable, allowing it to be selected by clients that may need to
write on this file system. When the current file system instance
is writable and is defined as of the same simultaneous use class
(as specified by the value at index FSLI4BX_CLSIMUL) to which the
client was previously writing, then it must incorporate within its
data any committed write made on the source file system instance.
See Section 8.6, which discusses the write-verifier class. While
there is no harm in not setting this flag for a file system that
turns out to be writable, turning the flag on for a read-only file
system can cause problems for clients that select a migration or
replication target based on the flag and then find themselves
unable to write.
o FSLI4GF_CUR_REQ indicates that this replica is the one on which
the request is being made. Only a single server entry may have
this flag set and, in the case of a referral, no entry will have
it set. Note that this flag might be set even if the request was
made on a network access path different from any of those
specified in the current entry.
o FSLI4GF_ABSENT indicates that this entry corresponds to an absent
file system replica. It can only be set if FSLI4GF_CUR_REQ is
set. When both such bits are set, it indicates that a file system
instance is not usable but that the information in the entry can
be used to determine the sorts of continuity available when
switching from this replica to other possible replicas. Since
this bit can only be true if FSLI4GF_CUR_REQ is true, the value
could be determined using the fs_status attribute, but the
information is also made available here for the convenience of the
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
client. An entry with this bit, since it represents a true file
system (albeit absent), does not appear in the event of a
referral, but only when a file system has been accessed at this
location and has subsequently been migrated.
o FSLI4GF_GOING indicates that a replica, while still available,
should not be used further. The client, if using it, should make
an orderly transfer to another file system instance as
expeditiously as possible. It is expected that file systems going
out of service will be announced as FSLI4GF_GOING some time before
the actual loss of service. It is also expected that the
fli_valid_for value will be sufficiently small to allow clients to
detect and act on scheduled events, while large enough that the
cost of the requests to fetch the fs_locations_info values will
not be excessive. Values on the order of ten minutes seem
reasonable.
When this flag is seen as part of a transition into a new file
system, a client might choose to transfer immediately to another
replica, or it may reference the current file system and only
transition when a migration event occurs. Similarly, when this
flag appears as a replica in the referral, clients would likely
avoid being referred to this instance whenever there is another
choice.
This flag, like the other items within fls_info applies to the
replica, rather than to a particular path to that replica. When
it appears, a transition to a new replica rather than to a
different path to the same replica, is indicated.
o FSLI4GF_SPLIT indicates that when a transition occurs from the
current file system instance to this one, the replacement may
consist of multiple file systems. In this case, the client has to
be prepared for the possibility that objects on the same file
system before migration will be on different ones after. Note
that FSLI4GF_SPLIT is not incompatible with the file systems
belonging to the same fileid class since, if one has a set of
fileids that are unique within a file system, each subset assigned
to a smaller file system after migration would not have any
conflicts internal to that file system.
A client, in the case of a split file system, will interrogate
existing files with which it has continuing connection (it is free
to simply forget cached filehandles). If the client remembers the
directory filehandle associated with each open file, it may
proceed upward using LOOKUPP to find the new file system
boundaries. Note that in the event of a referral, there will not
be any such files and so these actions will not be performed.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
Instead, a reference to a portion of the original file system now
split off into other file systems will encounter an fsid change
and possibly a further referral.
Once the client recognizes that one file system has been split
into two, it can prevent the disruption of running applications by
presenting the two file systems as a single one until a convenient
point to recognize the transition, such as a restart. This would
require a mapping from the server's fsids to fsids as seen by the
client, but this is already necessary for other reasons. As noted
above, existing fileids within the two descendant file systems
will not conflict. Providing non-conflicting fileids for newly
created files on the split file systems is the responsibility of
the server (or servers working in concert). The server can encode
filehandles such that filehandles generated before the split event
can be discerned from those generated after the split, allowing
the server to determine when the need for emulating two file
systems as one is over.
Although it is possible for this flag to be present in the event
of referral, it would generally be of little interest to the
client, since the client is not expected to have information
regarding the current contents of the absent file system.
The transport-flag field (at byte index FSLI4BX_TFLAGS) contains the
following bits related to the transport capabilities of the specific
network path(s) specified by the entry.
o FSLI4TF_RDMA indicates that any specified network paths provide
NFSv4.1 clients access using an RDMA-capable transport.
Attribute continuity and file system identity information are
expressed by defining equivalence relations on the sets of file
systems presented to the client. Each such relation is expressed as
a set of file system equivalence classes. For each relation, a file
system has an 8-bit class number. Two file systems belong to the
same class if both have identical non-zero class numbers. Zero is
treated as non-matching. Most often, the relevant question for the
client will be whether a given replica is identical to / continuous
with the current one in a given respect, but the information should
be available also as to whether two other replicas match in that
respect as well.
The following fields specify the file system's class numbers for the
equivalence relations used in determining the nature of file system
transitions. See Sections 6 through 11 and their various subsections
for details about how this information is to be used. Servers may
assign these values as they wish, so long as file system instances
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
that share the same value have the specified relationship to one
another; conversely, file systems that have the specified
relationship to one another share a common class value. As each
instance entry is added, the relationships of this instance to
previously entered instances can be consulted, and if one is found
that bears the specified relationship, that entry's class value can
be copied to the new entry. When no such previous entry exists, a
new value for that byte index (not previously used) can be selected,
most likely by incrementing the value of the last class value
assigned for that index.
o The field with byte index FSLI4BX_CLSIMUL defines the
simultaneous-use class for the file system.
o The field with byte index FSLI4BX_CLHANDLE defines the handle
class for the file system.
o The field with byte index FSLI4BX_CLFILEID defines the fileid
class for the file system.
o The field with byte index FSLI4BX_CLWRITEVER defines the write-
verifier class for the file system.
o The field with byte index FSLI4BX_CLCHANGE defines the change
class for the file system.
o The field with byte index FSLI4BX_CLREADDIR defines the readdir
class for the file system.
Server-specified preference information is also provided via 8-bit
values within the fls_info array. The values provide a rank and an
order (see below) to be used with separate values specifiable for the
cases of read-only and writable file systems. These values are
compared for different file systems to establish the server-specified
preference, with lower values indicating "more preferred".
Rank is used to express a strict server-imposed ordering on clients,
with lower values indicating "more preferred". Clients should
attempt to use all replicas with a given rank before they use one
with a higher rank. Only if all of those file systems are
unavailable should the client proceed to those of a higher rank.
Because specifying a rank will override client preferences, servers
should be conservative about using this mechanism, particularly when
the environment is one in which client communication characteristics
are neither tightly controlled nor visible to the server.
Within a rank, the order value is used to specify the server's
preference to guide the client's selection when the client's own
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
preferences are not controlling, with lower values of order
indicating "more preferred". If replicas are approximately equal in
all respects, clients should defer to the order specified by the
server. When clients look at server latency as part of their
selection, they are free to use this criterion but it is suggested
that when latency differences are not significant, the server-
specified order should guide selection.
o The field at byte index FSLI4BX_READRANK gives the rank value to
be used for read-only access.
o The field at byte index FSLI4BX_READORDER gives the order value to
be used for read-only access.
o The field at byte index FSLI4BX_WRITERANK gives the rank value to
be used for writable access.
o The field at byte index FSLI4BX_WRITEORDER gives the order value
to be used for writable access.
Depending on the potential need for write access by a given client,
one of the pairs of rank and order values is used. The read rank and
order should only be used if the client knows that only reading will
ever be done or if it is prepared to switch to a different replica in
the event that any write access capability is required in the future.
12.2.2. Updated Section 11.10.2 of [RFC5661] entitled "The
fs_locations_info4 Structure"
The fs_locations_info4 structure, encoding the fs_locations_info
attribute, contains the following:
o The fli_flags field, which contains general flags that affect the
interpretation of this fs_locations_info4 structure and all
fs_locations_item4 structures within it. The only flag currently
defined is FSLI4IF_VAR_SUB. All bits in the fli_flags field that
are not defined should always be returned as zero.
o The fli_fs_root field, which contains the pathname of the root of
the current file system on the current server, just as it does in
the fs_locations4 structure.
o An array called fli_items of fs_locations4_item structures, which
contain information about replicas of the current file system.
Where the current file system is actually present, or has been
present, i.e., this is not a referral situation, one of the
fs_locations_item4 structures will contain an fs_locations_server4
for the current server. This structure will have FSLI4GF_ABSENT
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
set if the current file system is absent, i.e., normal access to
it will return NFS4ERR_MOVED.
o The fli_valid_for field specifies a time in seconds for which it
is reasonable for a client to use the fs_locations_info attribute
without refetch. The fli_valid_for value does not provide a
guarantee of validity since servers can unexpectedly go out of
service or become inaccessible for any number of reasons. Clients
are well-advised to refetch this information for an actively
accessed file system at every fli_valid_for seconds. This is
particularly important when file system replicas may go out of
service in a controlled way using the FSLI4GF_GOING flag to
communicate an ongoing change. The server should set
fli_valid_for to a value that allows well-behaved clients to
notice the FSLI4GF_GOING flag and make an orderly switch before
the loss of service becomes effective. If this value is zero,
then no refetch interval is appropriate and the client need not
refetch this data on any particular schedule. In the event of a
transition to a new file system instance, a new value of the
fs_locations_info attribute will be fetched at the destination.
It is to be expected that this may have a different fli_valid_for
value, which the client should then use in the same fashion as the
previous value. Because a refetch of the attribute cause
information from all component entries to be refetched, the server
will typically provide a low value for this field if any of the
replicas are likely to go out of service in a short time frame.
Note that, because of the ability of the server to return
NFS4ERR_MOVED to change to use of different paths, when alternate
trunked paths are available, there is generally no need to use low
values of fli_valid_for in connection with the management of
alternate paths to the same replica.
The FSLI4IF_VAR_SUB flag within fli_flags controls whether variable
substitution is to be enabled. See Section 12.2.3 for an explanation
of variable substitution.
12.2.3. Updated Section 11.10.3 of [RFC5661] entitled "The
fs_locations_item4 Structure"
The fs_locations_item4 structure contains a pathname (in the field
fli_rootpath) that encodes the path of the target file system
replicas on the set of servers designated by the included
fs_locations_server4 entries. The precise manner in which this
target location is specified depends on the value of the
FSLI4IF_VAR_SUB flag within the associated fs_locations_info4
structure.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
If this flag is not set, then fli_rootpath simply designates the
location of the target file system within each server's single-server
namespace just as it does for the rootpath within the fs_location4
structure. When this bit is set, however, component entries of a
certain form are subject to client-specific variable substitution so
as to allow a degree of namespace non-uniformity in order to
accommodate the selection of client-specific file system targets to
adapt to different client architectures or other characteristics.
When such substitution is in effect, a variable beginning with the
string "${" and ending with the string "}" and containing a colon is
to be replaced by the client-specific value associated with that
variable. The string "unknown" should be used by the client when it
has no value for such a variable. The pathname resulting from such
substitutions is used to designate the target file system, so that
different clients may have different file systems, corresponding to
that location in the multi-server namespace.
As mentioned above, such substituted pathname variables contain a
colon. The part before the colon is to be a DNS domain name, and the
part after is to be a case-insensitive alphanumeric string.
Where the domain is "ietf.org", only variable names defined in this
document or subsequent Standards Track RFCs are subject to such
substitution. Organizations are free to use their domain names to
create their own sets of client-specific variables, to be subject to
such substitution. In cases where such variables are intended to be
used more broadly than a single organization, publication of an
Informational RFC defining such variables is RECOMMENDED.
The variable ${ietf.org:CPU_ARCH} is used to denote that the CPU
architecture object files are compiled. This specification does not
limit the acceptable values (except that they must be valid UTF-8
strings), but such values as "x86", "x86_64", and "sparc" would be
expected to be used in line with industry practice.
The variable ${ietf.org:OS_TYPE} is used to denote the operating
system, and thus the kernel and library APIs, for which code might be
compiled. This specification does not limit the acceptable values
(except that they must be valid UTF-8 strings), but such values as
"linux" and "freebsd" would be expected to be used in line with
industry practice.
The variable ${ietf.org:OS_VERSION} is used to denote the operating
system version, and thus the specific details of versioned
interfaces, for which code might be compiled. This specification
does not limit the acceptable values (except that they must be valid
UTF-8 strings). However, combinations of numbers and letters with
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
interspersed dots would be expected to be used in line with industry
practice, with the details of the version format depending on the
specific value of the variable ${ietf.org:OS_TYPE} with which it is
used.
Use of these variables could result in the direction of different
clients to different file systems on the same server, as appropriate
to particular clients. In cases in which the target file systems are
located on different servers, a single server could serve as a
referral point so that each valid combination of variable values
would designate a referral hosted on a single server, with the
targets of those referrals on a number of different servers.
Because namespace administration is affected by the values selected
to substitute for various variables, clients should provide
convenient means of determining what variable substitutions a client
will implement, as well as, where appropriate, providing means to
control the substitutions to be used. The exact means by which this
will be done is outside the scope of this specification.
Although variable substitution is most suitable for use in the
context of referrals, it may be used in the context of replication
and migration. If it is used in these contexts, the server must
ensure that no matter what values the client presents for the
substituted variables, the result is always a valid successor file
system instance to that from which a transition is occurring, i.e.,
that the data is identical or represents a later image of a writable
file system.
Note that when fli_rootpath is a null pathname (that is, one with
zero components), the file system designated is at the root of the
specified server, whether or not the FSLI4IF_VAR_SUB flag within the
associated fs_locations_info4 structure is set.
13. Changes to [RFC5661] outside Section 11
Beside the major rework of Section 11, there are a number of related
changes that are necessary:
o The summary that appeared in Section 1.7.3.3 of [RFC5661] needs to
be revised to reflect the changes called for in Section 4 of the
current document. The updated summary appears as Section 13.1
below.
o The discussion of server scope which appeared in Section 2.10.4 of
[RFC5661] needs to be replaced, since the existing text appears to
require a level of inter-server co-ordination incompatible with
its basic function of avoiding the need for a globally uniform
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
means of assigning server_owner values. A revised treatment
appears in Section 13.2 below.
o While the last paragraph (exclusive of sub-sections) of
Section 2.10.5 in [RFC5661], dealing with server_owner changes, is
literally true, it has been a source of confusion. Since the
existing paragraph can be read as suggesting that such changes be
dealt with non-disruptively, the treatment in Section 13.4 below
needs to be substituted.
o The existing definition of NFS4ERR_MOVED (in Section 15.1.2.4 of
[RFC5661]) needs to be updated to reflect the different handling
of unavailability of a particular fs via a specific network
address. Since such a situation is no longer considered to
constitute unavailability of a file system instance, the
description needs to change even though the set of circumstances
in which it is to be returned remain the same. The updated
description appears in Section 13.3 below.
o The existing treatment of EXCHANGE_ID (in Section 18.35 of
[RFC5661]) assumes that client IDs cannot be created/ confirmed
other than by the EXCHANGE_ID and CREATE_SESSION operations.
Also, the necessary use of EXCHANGE_ID in recovery from migration
and related situations is not addressed clearly. A revised
treatment of EXCHANGE_ID is necessary and it appears in Section 14
below while the specific differences between it and the treatment
within [RFC5661] are explained in Section 13.5 below.
o The existing treatment of RECLAIM_COMPLETE in section 18.51 of
[RFC5661]) is not sufficiently clear about the purpose and use of
the rca_one_fs and how the server is to deal with inappropriate
values of this argument. Because the resulting confusion raises
interoperability issues, a new treatment of RECLAIM_COMPLETE is
necessary and it appears in Section 15 below while the specific
differences between it and the treatment within [RFC5661] are
discussed in Section 13.6 below. In addition, the definitions of
the reclaim-related errors receive an updated treatment in
Section 13.7 to reflect the fact that there are multiple contexts
for lock reclaim operations.
13.1. Updated section 1.7.3.3 of [RFC5661] to be retitled "Introduction
to Multi-Server Namespace"
NFSv4.1 contains a number of features to allow implementation of
namespaces that cross server boundaries and that allow and facilitate
a non-disruptive transfer of support for individual file systems
between servers. They are all based upon attributes that allow one
file system to specify alternate, additional, and new location
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
information which specifies how the client may access to access that
file system.
These attributes can be used to provide for individual active file
systems:
o Alternate network addresses to access the current file system
instance.
o The locations of alternate file system instances or replicas to be
used in the event that the current file system instance becomes
unavailable.
These file system location attributes may be used together with the
concept of absent file systems, in which a position in the server
namespace is associated with locations on other servers without there
being any corresponding file system instance on the current server.
o These attributes may be used with absent file systems to implement
referrals whereby one server may direct the client to a file
system provided by another server. This allows extensive multi-
server namespaces to be constructed.
o These attributes may be provided when a previously present file
system becomes absent. This allows non-disruptive migration of
file systems to alternate servers.
13.2. Updated Section 2.10.4 of [RFC5661] entitled "Server Scope"
Servers each specify a server scope value in the form of an opaque
string eir_server_scope returned as part of the results of an
EXCHANGE_ID operation. The purpose of the server scope is to allow a
group of servers to indicate to clients that a set of servers sharing
the same server scope value has arranged to use compatible values of
otherwise opaque identifiers. Thus, the identifiers generated by two
servers within that set can be assumed compatible so that, in some
cases, identifiers by one server in that set that set may be
presented to another server of the same scope.
The use of such compatible values does not imply that a value
generated by one server will always be accepted by another. In most
cases, it will not. However, a server will not accept a value
generated by another inadvertently. When it does accept it, it will
be because it is recognized as valid and carrying the same meaning as
on another server of the same scope.
When servers are of the same server scope, this compatibility of
values applies to the following identifiers:
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o Filehandle values. A filehandle value accepted by two servers of
the same server scope denotes the same object. A WRITE operation
sent to one server is reflected immediately in a READ sent to the
other.
o Server owner values. When the server scope values are the same,
server owner value may be validly compared. In cases where the
server scope values are different, server owner values are treated
as different even if they contain identical strings of bytes.
The coordination among servers required to provide such compatibility
can be quite minimal, and limited to a simple partition of the ID
space. The recognition of common values requires additional
implementation, but this can be tailored to the specific situations
in which that recognition is desired.
Clients will have occasion to compare the server scope values of
multiple servers under a number of circumstances, each of which will
be discussed under the appropriate functional section:
o When server owner values received in response to EXCHANGE_ID
operations sent to multiple network addresses are compared for the
purpose of determining the validity of various forms of trunking,
as described in Section 4.5.2 of the current document.
o When network or server reconfiguration causes the same network
address to possibly be directed to different servers, with the
necessity for the client to determine when lock reclaim should be
attempted, as described in Section 8.4.2.1 of [RFC5661].
When two replies from EXCHANGE_ID, each from two different server
network addresses, have the same server scope, there are a number of
ways a client can validate that the common server scope is due to two
servers cooperating in a group.
o If both EXCHANGE_ID requests were sent with RPCSEC_GSS ([RFC2203],
[RFC5403], [RFC7861]) authentication and the server principal is
the same for both targets, the equality of server scope is
validated. It is RECOMMENDED that two servers intending to share
the same server scope also share the same principal name,
simplifying the client's task of validating server scope.
o The client may accept the appearance of the second server in the
fs_locations or fs_locations_info attribute for a relevant file
system. For example, if there is a migration event for a
particular file system or there are locks to be reclaimed on a
particular file system, the attributes for that particular file
system may be used. The client sends the GETATTR request to the
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
first server for the fs_locations or fs_locations_info attribute
with RPCSEC_GSS authentication. It may need to do this in advance
of the need to verify the common server scope. If the client
successfully authenticates the reply to GETATTR, and the GETATTR
request and reply containing the fs_locations or fs_locations_info
attribute refers to the second server, then the equality of server
scope is supported. A client may choose to limit the use of this
form of support to information relevant to the specific file
system involved (e.g. a file system being migrated).
13.3. Revised Treatment of NFS4ERR_MOVED
Because of the need to appropriately address trunking-related issues,
some uses of the term "replica" in [RFC5661] have become problematic
since a shift in network access paths was considered to be a shift to
a different replica. As a result, the description of NFS4ERR_MOVED
in [RFC5661] needs to be changed to the one below. The new paragraph
explicitly recognizes that a different network address might be used,
while the previous description, misleadingly, treated this as a shift
between two replicas while only a single file system instance might
be involved.
The file system that contains the current filehandle object is not
accessible using the address on which the request was made. It
still might be accessible using other addresses server-trunkable
with it or it might not be present at the server. In the latter
case, it might have been relocated or migrated to another server,
or it might have never been present. The client may obtain
information regarding access to the file system location by
obtaining the "fs_locations" or "fs_locations_info" attribute for
the current filehandle. For further discussion, refer to
Section 11 of [RFC5661], as modified by the current document.
13.4. Revised Discussion of Server_owner changes
Section 2.10.5 of [RFC5661] discusses the issue of possible
server_owner changes as follows:
The client should be prepared for the possibility that
eir_server_owner values may be different on subsequent EXCHANGE_ID
requests made to the same network address, as a result of various
sorts of reconfiguration events. When this happens and the
changes result in the invalidation of previously valid forms of
trunking, the client should cease to use those forms, either by
dropping connections or by adding sessions. For a discussion of
lock reclaim as it relates to such reconfiguration events, see
Section 8.4.2.1
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
While this paragraph is literally true in that such reconfiguration
events can happen and clients have to deal with them, it is confusing
in that it can be read as suggesting that clients have to deal with
them without disruption, which in general is impossible. This has
led to confusion especially since the text is not very clear about
the actions that might need to be done since:
o The cases of change which are very disruptive (e.g. change of
server scope) are not sufficiently distinguished from those that
simply involve a change of trunking modes (i.e. change
server_owner minor id)
o There is an undue focus on the effect of such changes as they
affect the comparison with corresponding value from other servers,
without fully dealing with the issue that result from value
discontinuity within a single server.
Because of these issues the paragraph which appears at the end of
Section 2.10.5 needs to be replaced by the material below.
It is always possible that, as a result of various sorts of
reconfiguration events, eir_server_scope and eir_server_owner
values may be different on subsequent EXCHANGE_ID requests made to
the same network address.
In most cases such reconfiguration events will be disruptive and
indicate that an IP address formerly connected to one server is
now connected to an entirely different one.
Some guidelines on client handling of such situations follow:
* When eir_server_scope changes, the client has no assurance that
any id's it obtained previously (e.g. file handles, state ids,
client ids) can be validly used on the new server, and, even if
the new server accepts them, there is no assurance that this is
not due to accident. Thus it is best to treat all such state
as lost/stale although a client may assume that the probability
of inadvertent acceptance is low and treat this situation as
within the next case.
* When eir_server_scope remains the same and
eir_server_owner.so_major_id changes, the client can use the
filehandles it has, consider its locking state lost, and
attempt to reclaim or otherwise re-obtain its locks. It may
find that its file handle are now stale but if NFS4ERR_STALE is
not received, it can proceed to reclaim or otherwise re-obtain
its open locking state.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
* When eir_server_scope and eir_server_owner.so_major_id remain
the same, the client has to use the now-current values of
eir_server_owner.so_minor_id in deciding on appropriate forms
of trunking. This may result in connections being dropped or
new sessions being created.
13.5. Revision to Treatment of EXCHANGE_ID
There are a number of issues in the original treatment of EXCHANGE_ID
(in [RFC5661]) that cause problems for Transparent State Migration
and for the transfer of access between different network access paths
to the same file system instance.
These issues arise from the fact that this treatment was written:
o Assuming that a client ID can only become known to a server by
having been created by executing an EXCHANGE_ID, with confirmation
of the ID only possible by execution of a CREATE_SESSION.
o Considering the interactions between a client and a server only on
a single network address
As these assumptions have become invalid in the context of
Transparent State Migration and active use of trunking, the treatment
has been modified in several respects.
o It had been assumed that an EXCHANGED_ID executed when the server
is already aware of a given client instance must be either
updating associated parameters (e.g. with respect to callbacks) or
a lingering retransmission to deal with a previously lost reply.
As result, any slot sequence returned by that operation would be
of no use. The existing treatment goes so far as to say that it
"MUST NOT" be used, although this usage is not in accord with
[RFC2119]. This created a difficulty when an EXCHANGE_ID is done
after Transparent State Migration since that slot sequence would
need to be used in a subsequent CREATE_SESSION.
In the updated treatment, CREATE_SESSION is a way that client IDs
are confirmed but it is understood that other ways are possible.
The slot sequence can be used as needed and cases in which it
would be of no use are appropriately noted.
o It was assumed that the only functions of EXCHANGE_ID were to
inform the server of the client, create the client ID, and
communicate it to the client. When multiple simultaneous
connections are involved, as often happens when trunking, that
treatment was inadequate in that it ignored the role of
EXCHANGE_ID in associating the client ID with the connection on
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
which it was done, so that it could be used by a subsequent
CREATE_SESSSION, whose parameters do not include an explicit
client ID.
The new treatment explicitly discusses the role of EXCHANGE_ID in
associating the client ID with the connection so it can be used by
CREATE_SESSION and in associating a connection with an existing
session.
The new treatment can be found in Section 14 below. It is intended
to supersede the treatment in Section 18.35 of [RFC5661]. Publishing
a complete replacement for Section 18.35 allows the corrected
definition to be read as a whole once [RFC5661] is updated
13.6. Revision to Treatment of RECLAIM_COMPLETE
The following changes were made to the treatment of RECLAIM_COMPLETE
in [RFC5661] to arrive at the treatment in Section 15.
o In a number of places the text is more explicit about the purpose
of rca_one_fs and its connection to file system migration.
o There is a discussion of situations in which either form of
RECLAIM_COMPLETE would need to be done.
o There is a discussion of interoperability issues that result from
implementations that may have arisen due to the lack of clarity of
the previous treatment of RECLAIM_COMPLETE.
13.7. Updated Section 15.1.9 of [RFC5661] entitled "Reclaim Errors"
These errors relate to the process of reclaiming locks after a server
restart or in connection with the migration of a file system (i.e. in
the case in which rca_one_fs is TRUE).
13.7.1. Updated Section 15.1.9.1 of [RFC5661] entitled
"NFS4ERR_COMPLETE_ALREADY (Error Code 10054)"
The client previously sent a successful RECLAIM_COMPLETE operation
specifying the same scope, whether that scope is global or for the
same file system in the case of a per-fs RECLAIM_COMPLETE. An
additional RECLAIM_COMPLETE operation is not necessary and results in
this error.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
13.7.2. Updated Section 15.1.9.2 of [RFC5661] entitled "NFS4ERR_GRACE
(Error Code 10013)"
The server was in its recovery or grace period, with regard to the
file system object for which the lock was requested. The locking
request was not a reclaim request and so could not be granted during
that period.
13.7.3. Updated Section 15.1.9.3 of [RFC5661] entitled
"NFS4ERR_NO_GRACE (Error Code 10033)"
A reclaim of client state was attempted in circumstances in which the
server cannot guarantee that conflicting state has not been provided
to another client. This can occur because the reclaim has been done
outside of a grace period of implemented by the server, after the
client has done a RECLAIM_COMPLETE operation which ends its ability
to reclaim the requested lock, or because previous operations have
created a situation in which the server is not able to determine that
a reclaim-interfering edge condition does not exist.
13.7.4. Updated Section 15.1.9.4 of [RFC5661] entitled
"NFS4ERR_RECLAIM_BAD (Error Code 10034)"
The server has determined that a reclaim attempted by the client is
not valid, i.e. the lock specified as being reclaimed could not
possibly have existed before the server restart or file system
migration event. A server is not obliged to make this determination
and will typically rely on the client to only reclaim locks that the
client was granted prior to restart or file system migration.
However, when a server does have reliable information to enable it
make this determination, this error indicates that the reclaim has
been rejected as invalid. This is as opposed to the error
NFS4ERR_RECLAIM_CONFLICT (see Section 13.7.5) where the server can
only determine that there has been an invalid reclaim, but cannot
determine which request is invalid.
13.7.5. Updated Section 15.1.9.5 of [RFC5661] entitled
"NFS4ERR_RECLAIM_CONFLICT (Error Code 10035)"
The reclaim attempted by the client has encountered a conflict and
cannot be satisfied. Potentially indicates a misbehaving client,
although not necessarily the one receiving the error. The
misbehavior might be on the part of the client that established the
lock with which this client conflicted. See also Section 13.7.4 for
the related error, NFS4ERR_RECLAIM_BAD.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
14. Updated Section 18.35 of [RFC5661] entitled "Operation 42:
EXCHANGE_ID - Instantiate Client ID"
The EXCHANGE_ID exchanges long-hand client and server identifiers
(owners), and provides access to a client ID, creating one if
necessary. This client ID becomes associated with the connection on
which the operation is done, so that it is available when a
CREATE_SESSION is done or when the connection is used to issue a
request on an existing session associated with the current client.
14.1. Updated Section 18.35.1 of [RFC5661] entitled "ARGUMENT"
<CODE BEGINS>
const EXCHGID4_FLAG_SUPP_MOVED_REFER = 0x00000001;
const EXCHGID4_FLAG_SUPP_MOVED_MIGR = 0x00000002;
const EXCHGID4_FLAG_BIND_PRINC_STATEID = 0x00000100;
const EXCHGID4_FLAG_USE_NON_PNFS = 0x00010000;
const EXCHGID4_FLAG_USE_PNFS_MDS = 0x00020000;
const EXCHGID4_FLAG_USE_PNFS_DS = 0x00040000;
const EXCHGID4_FLAG_MASK_PNFS = 0x00070000;
const EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A = 0x40000000;
const EXCHGID4_FLAG_CONFIRMED_R = 0x80000000;
struct state_protect_ops4 {
bitmap4 spo_must_enforce;
bitmap4 spo_must_allow;
};
struct ssv_sp_parms4 {
state_protect_ops4 ssp_ops;
sec_oid4 ssp_hash_algs<>;
sec_oid4 ssp_encr_algs<>;
uint32_t ssp_window;
uint32_t ssp_num_gss_handles;
};
enum state_protect_how4 {
SP4_NONE = 0,
SP4_MACH_CRED = 1,
SP4_SSV = 2
};
union state_protect4_a switch(state_protect_how4 spa_how) {
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
case SP4_NONE:
void;
case SP4_MACH_CRED:
state_protect_ops4 spa_mach_ops;
case SP4_SSV:
ssv_sp_parms4 spa_ssv_parms;
};
struct EXCHANGE_ID4args {
client_owner4 eia_clientowner;
uint32_t eia_flags;
state_protect4_a eia_state_protect;
nfs_impl_id4 eia_client_impl_id<1>;
};
<CODE ENDS>
14.2. Updated Section 18.35.2 of [RFC5661] entitled "RESULT"
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
<CODE BEGINS>
struct ssv_prot_info4 {
state_protect_ops4 spi_ops;
uint32_t spi_hash_alg;
uint32_t spi_encr_alg;
uint32_t spi_ssv_len;
uint32_t spi_window;
gsshandle4_t spi_handles<>;
};
union state_protect4_r switch(state_protect_how4 spr_how) {
case SP4_NONE:
void;
case SP4_MACH_CRED:
state_protect_ops4 spr_mach_ops;
case SP4_SSV:
ssv_prot_info4 spr_ssv_info;
};
struct EXCHANGE_ID4resok {
clientid4 eir_clientid;
sequenceid4 eir_sequenceid;
uint32_t eir_flags;
state_protect4_r eir_state_protect;
server_owner4 eir_server_owner;
opaque eir_server_scope<NFS4_OPAQUE_LIMIT>;
nfs_impl_id4 eir_server_impl_id<1>;
};
union EXCHANGE_ID4res switch (nfsstat4 eir_status) {
case NFS4_OK:
EXCHANGE_ID4resok eir_resok4;
default:
void;
};
<CODE ENDS>
14.3. Updated Section 18.35.3 of [RFC5661] entitled "DESCRIPTION"
The client uses the EXCHANGE_ID operation to register a particular
client_owner with the server. However, when the client_owner has
been already been registered by other means (e.g. Transparent State
Migration), the client may still use EXCHANGE_ID to obtain the client
ID assigned previously.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
The client ID returned from this operation will be associated with
the connection on which the EXHANGE_ID is received and will serve as
a parent object for sessions created by the client on this connection
or to which the connection is bound. As a result of using those
sessions to make requests involving the creation of state, that state
will become associated with the client ID returned.
In situations in which the registration of the client_owner has not
occurred previously, the client ID must first be used, along with the
returned eir_sequenceid, in creating an associated session using
CREATE_SESSION.
If the flag EXCHGID4_FLAG_CONFIRMED_R is set in the result,
eir_flags, then it is an indication that the registration of the
client_owner has already occurred and that a further CREATE_SESSION
is not needed to confirm it. Of course, subsequent CREATE_SESSION
operations may be needed for other reasons.
The value eir_sequenceid is used to establish an initial sequence
value associate with the client ID returned. In cases in which a
CREATE_SESSION has already been done, there is no need for this
value, since sequencing of such request has already been established
and the client has no need for this value and will ignore it
EXCHANGE_ID MAY be sent in a COMPOUND procedure that starts with
SEQUENCE. However, when a client communicates with a server for the
first time, it will not have a session, so using SEQUENCE will not be
possible. If EXCHANGE_ID is sent without a preceding SEQUENCE, then
it MUST be the only operation in the COMPOUND procedure's request.
If it is not, the server MUST return NFS4ERR_NOT_ONLY_OP.
The eia_clientowner field is composed of a co_verifier field and a
co_ownerid string. As noted in section 2.4 of [RFC5661], the
co_ownerid describes the client, and the co_verifier is the
incarnation of the client. An EXCHANGE_ID sent with a new
incarnation of the client will lead to the server removing lock state
of the old incarnation. Whereas an EXCHANGE_ID sent with the current
incarnation and co_ownerid will result in an error or an update of
the client ID's properties, depending on the arguments to
EXCHANGE_ID.
A server MUST NOT provide the same client ID to two different
incarnations of an eir_clientowner.
In addition to the client ID and sequence ID, the server returns a
server owner (eir_server_owner) and server scope (eir_server_scope).
The former field is used in connection with network trunking as
described in Section 2.10.54 of [RFC5661]. The latter field is used
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
to allow clients to determine when client IDs sent by one server may
be recognized by another in the event of file system migration (see
Section 8.9 of the current document).
The client ID returned by EXCHANGE_ID is only unique relative to the
combination of eir_server_owner.so_major_id and eir_server_scope.
Thus, if two servers return the same client ID, the onus is on the
client to distinguish the client IDs on the basis of
eir_server_owner.so_major_id and eir_server_scope. In the event two
different servers claim matching server_owner.so_major_id and
eir_server_scope, the client can use the verification techniques
discussed in Section 2.10.5 of [RFC5661] to determine if the servers
are distinct. If they are distinct, then the client will need to
note the destination network addresses of the connections used with
each server, and use the network address as the final discriminator.
The server, as defined by the unique identity expressed in the
so_major_id of the server owner and the server scope, needs to track
several properties of each client ID it hands out. The properties
apply to the client ID and all sessions associated with the client
ID. The properties are derived from the arguments and results of
EXCHANGE_ID. The client ID properties include:
o The capabilities expressed by the following bits, which come from
the results of EXCHANGE_ID:
* EXCHGID4_FLAG_SUPP_MOVED_REFER
* EXCHGID4_FLAG_SUPP_MOVED_MIGR
* EXCHGID4_FLAG_BIND_PRINC_STATEID
* EXCHGID4_FLAG_USE_NON_PNFS
* EXCHGID4_FLAG_USE_PNFS_MDS
* EXCHGID4_FLAG_USE_PNFS_DS
These properties may be updated by subsequent EXCHANGE_ID
operations on confirmed client IDs though the server MAY refuse to
change them.
o The state protection method used, one of SP4_NONE, SP4_MACH_CRED,
or SP4_SSV, as set by the spa_how field of the arguments to
EXCHANGE_ID. Once the client ID is confirmed, this property
cannot be updated by subsequent EXCHANGE_ID operations.
o For SP4_MACH_CRED or SP4_SSV state protection:
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
* The list of operations (spo_must_enforce) that MUST use the
specified state protection. This list comes from the results
of EXCHANGE_ID.
* The list of operations (spo_must_allow) that MAY use the
specified state protection. This list comes from the results
of EXCHANGE_ID.
Once the client ID is confirmed, these properties cannot be
updated by subsequent EXCHANGE_ID requests.
o For SP4_SSV protection:
* The OID of the hash algorithm. This property is represented by
one of the algorithms in the ssp_hash_algs field of the
EXCHANGE_ID arguments. Once the client ID is confirmed, this
property cannot be updated by subsequent EXCHANGE_ID requests.
* The OID of the encryption algorithm. This property is
represented by one of the algorithms in the ssp_encr_algs field
of the EXCHANGE_ID arguments. Once the client ID is confirmed,
this property cannot be updated by subsequent EXCHANGE_ID
requests.
* The length of the SSV. This property is represented by the
spi_ssv_len field in the EXCHANGE_ID results. Once the client
ID is confirmed, this property cannot be updated by subsequent
EXCHANGE_ID operations.
There are REQUIRED and RECOMMENDED relationships among the
length of the key of the encryption algorithm ("key length"),
the length of the output of hash algorithm ("hash length"), and
the length of the SSV ("SSV length").
+ key length MUST be <= hash length. This is because the keys
used for the encryption algorithm are actually subkeys
derived from the SSV, and the derivation is via the hash
algorithm. The selection of an encryption algorithm with a
key length that exceeded the length of the output of the
hash algorithm would require padding, and thus weaken the
use of the encryption algorithm.
+ hash length SHOULD be <= SSV length. This is because the
SSV is a key used to derive subkeys via an HMAC, and it is
recommended that the key used as input to an HMAC be at
least as long as the length of the HMAC's hash algorithm's
output (see Section 3 of [RFC2104]).
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
+ key length SHOULD be <= SSV length. This is a transitive
result of the above two invariants.
+ key length SHOULD be >= hash length / 2. This is because
the subkey derivation is via an HMAC and it is recommended
that if the HMAC has to be truncated, it should not be
truncated to less than half the hash length (see Section 4
of RFC2104 [RFC2104]).
* Number of concurrent versions of the SSV the client and server
will support (see Section 2.10.9 of [RFC5661]). This property
is represented by spi_window in the EXCHANGE_ID results. The
property may be updated by subsequent EXCHANGE_ID operations.
o The client's implementation ID as represented by the
eia_client_impl_id field of the arguments. The property may be
updated by subsequent EXCHANGE_ID requests.
o The server's implementation ID as represented by the
eir_server_impl_id field of the reply. The property may be
updated by replies to subsequent EXCHANGE_ID requests.
The eia_flags passed as part of the arguments and the eir_flags
results allow the client and server to inform each other of their
capabilities as well as indicate how the client ID will be used.
Whether a bit is set or cleared on the arguments' flags does not
force the server to set or clear the same bit on the results' side.
Bits not defined above cannot be set in the eia_flags field. If they
are, the server MUST reject the operation with NFS4ERR_INVAL.
The EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A bit can only be set in
eia_flags; it is always off in eir_flags. The
EXCHGID4_FLAG_CONFIRMED_R bit can only be set in eir_flags; it is
always off in eia_flags. If the server recognizes the co_ownerid and
co_verifier as mapping to a confirmed client ID, it sets
EXCHGID4_FLAG_CONFIRMED_R in eir_flags. The
EXCHGID4_FLAG_CONFIRMED_R flag allows a client to tell if the client
ID it is trying to create already exists and is confirmed.
If EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A is set in eia_flags, this means
that the client is attempting to update properties of an existing
confirmed client ID (if the client wants to update properties of an
unconfirmed client ID, it MUST NOT set
EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A). If so, it is RECOMMENDED that
the client send the update EXCHANGE_ID operation in the same COMPOUND
as a SEQUENCE so that the EXCHANGE_ID is executed exactly once.
Whether the client can update the properties of client ID depends on
the state protection it selected when the client ID was created, and
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
the principal and security flavor it uses when sending the
EXCHANGE_ID operation. The situations described in items 6, 7, 8, or
9 of the second numbered list of Section 14.4 below will apply. Note
that if the operation succeeds and returns a client ID that is
already confirmed, the server MUST set the EXCHGID4_FLAG_CONFIRMED_R
bit in eir_flags.
If EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A is not set in eia_flags, this
means that the client is trying to establish a new client ID; it is
attempting to trunk data communication to the server (See
Section 2.10.5 of [RFC5661]); or it is attempting to update
properties of an unconfirmed client ID. The situations described in
items 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 of the second numbered list of Section 14.4
below will apply. Note that if the operation succeeds and returns a
client ID that was previously confirmed, the server MUST set the
EXCHGID4_FLAG_CONFIRMED_R bit in eir_flags.
When the EXCHGID4_FLAG_SUPP_MOVED_REFER flag bit is set, the client
indicates that it is capable of dealing with an NFS4ERR_MOVED error
as part of a referral sequence. When this bit is not set, it is
still legal for the server to perform a referral sequence. However,
a server may use the fact that the client is incapable of correctly
responding to a referral, by avoiding it for that particular client.
It may, for instance, act as a proxy for that particular file system,
at some cost in performance, although it is not obligated to do so.
If the server will potentially perform a referral, it MUST set
EXCHGID4_FLAG_SUPP_MOVED_REFER in eir_flags.
When the EXCHGID4_FLAG_SUPP_MOVED_MIGR is set, the client indicates
that it is capable of dealing with an NFS4ERR_MOVED error as part of
a file system migration sequence. When this bit is not set, it is
still legal for the server to indicate that a file system has moved,
when this in fact happens. However, a server may use the fact that
the client is incapable of correctly responding to a migration in its
scheduling of file systems to migrate so as to avoid migration of
file systems being actively used. It may also hide actual migrations
from clients unable to deal with them by acting as a proxy for a
migrated file system for particular clients, at some cost in
performance, although it is not obligated to do so. If the server
will potentially perform a migration, it MUST set
EXCHGID4_FLAG_SUPP_MOVED_MIGR in eir_flags.
When EXCHGID4_FLAG_BIND_PRINC_STATEID is set, the client indicates
that it wants the server to bind the stateid to the principal. This
means that when a principal creates a stateid, it has to be the one
to use the stateid. If the server will perform binding, it will
return EXCHGID4_FLAG_BIND_PRINC_STATEID. The server MAY return
EXCHGID4_FLAG_BIND_PRINC_STATEID even if the client does not request
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
it. If an update to the client ID changes the value of
EXCHGID4_FLAG_BIND_PRINC_STATEID's client ID property, the effect
applies only to new stateids. Existing stateids (and all stateids
with the same "other" field) that were created with stateid to
principal binding in force will continue to have binding in force.
Existing stateids (and all stateids with the same "other" field) that
were created with stateid to principal not in force will continue to
have binding not in force.
The EXCHGID4_FLAG_USE_NON_PNFS, EXCHGID4_FLAG_USE_PNFS_MDS, and
EXCHGID4_FLAG_USE_PNFS_DS bits are described in Section 13.1 of
[RFC5661] and convey roles the client ID is to be used for in a pNFS
environment. The server MUST set one of the acceptable combinations
of these bits (roles) in eir_flags, as specified in that section.
Note that the same client owner/server owner pair can have multiple
roles. Multiple roles can be associated with the same client ID or
with different client IDs. Thus, if a client sends EXCHANGE_ID from
the same client owner to the same server owner multiple times, but
specifies different pNFS roles each time, the server might return
different client IDs. Given that different pNFS roles might have
different client IDs, the client may ask for different properties for
each role/client ID.
The spa_how field of the eia_state_protect field specifies how the
client wants to protect its client, locking, and session states from
unauthorized changes (Section 2.10.8.3 of [RFC5661]):
o SP4_NONE. The client does not request the NFSv4.1 server to
enforce state protection. The NFSv4.1 server MUST NOT enforce
state protection for the returned client ID.
o SP4_MACH_CRED. If spa_how is SP4_MACH_CRED, then the client MUST
send the EXCHANGE_ID operation with RPCSEC_GSS as the security
flavor, and with a service of RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY or
RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY. If SP4_MACH_CRED is specified, then the
client wants to use an RPCSEC_GSS-based machine credential to
protect its state. The server MUST note the principal the
EXCHANGE_ID operation was sent with, and the GSS mechanism used.
These notes collectively comprise the machine credential.
After the client ID is confirmed, as long as the lease associated
with the client ID is unexpired, a subsequent EXCHANGE_ID
operation that uses the same eia_clientowner.co_owner as the first
EXCHANGE_ID MUST also use the same machine credential as the first
EXCHANGE_ID. The server returns the same client ID for the
subsequent EXCHANGE_ID as that returned from the first
EXCHANGE_ID.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o SP4_SSV. If spa_how is SP4_SSV, then the client MUST send the
EXCHANGE_ID operation with RPCSEC_GSS as the security flavor, and
with a service of RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY or RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY.
If SP4_SSV is specified, then the client wants to use the SSV to
protect its state. The server records the credential used in the
request as the machine credential (as defined above) for the
eia_clientowner.co_owner. The CREATE_SESSION operation that
confirms the client ID MUST use the same machine credential.
When a client specifies SP4_MACH_CRED or SP4_SSV, it also provides
two lists of operations (each expressed as a bitmap). The first list
is spo_must_enforce and consists of those operations the client MUST
send (subject to the server confirming the list of operations in the
result of EXCHANGE_ID) with the machine credential (if SP4_MACH_CRED
protection is specified) or the SSV-based credential (if SP4_SSV
protection is used). The client MUST send the operations with
RPCSEC_GSS credentials that specify the RPC_GSS_SVC_INTEGRITY or
RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY security service. Typically, the first list of
operations includes EXCHANGE_ID, CREATE_SESSION, DELEGPURGE,
DESTROY_SESSION, BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION, and DESTROY_CLIENTID. The
client SHOULD NOT specify in this list any operations that require a
filehandle because the server's access policies MAY conflict with the
client's choice, and thus the client would then be unable to access a
subset of the server's namespace.
Note that if SP4_SSV protection is specified, and the client
indicates that CREATE_SESSION must be protected with SP4_SSV, because
the SSV cannot exist without a confirmed client ID, the first
CREATE_SESSION MUST instead be sent using the machine credential, and
the server MUST accept the machine credential.
There is a corresponding result, also called spo_must_enforce, of the
operations for which the server will require SP4_MACH_CRED or SP4_SSV
protection. Normally, the server's result equals the client's
argument, but the result MAY be different. If the client requests
one or more operations in the set { EXCHANGE_ID, CREATE_SESSION,
DELEGPURGE, DESTROY_SESSION, BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION, DESTROY_CLIENTID
}, then the result spo_must_enforce MUST include the operations the
client requested from that set.
If spo_must_enforce in the results has BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION set, then
connection binding enforcement is enabled, and the client MUST use
the machine (if SP4_MACH_CRED protection is used) or SSV (if SP4_SSV
protection is used) credential on calls to BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION.
The second list is spo_must_allow and consists of those operations
the client wants to have the option of sending with the machine
credential or the SSV-based credential, even if the object the
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
operations are performed on is not owned by the machine or SSV
credential.
The corresponding result, also called spo_must_allow, consists of the
operations the server will allow the client to use SP4_SSV or
SP4_MACH_CRED credentials with. Normally, the server's result equals
the client's argument, but the result MAY be different.
The purpose of spo_must_allow is to allow clients to solve the
following conundrum. Suppose the client ID is confirmed with
EXCHGID4_FLAG_BIND_PRINC_STATEID, and it calls OPEN with the
RPCSEC_GSS credentials of a normal user. Now suppose the user's
credentials expire, and cannot be renewed (e.g., a Kerberos ticket
granting ticket expires, and the user has logged off and will not be
acquiring a new ticket granting ticket). The client will be unable
to send CLOSE without the user's credentials, which is to say the
client has to either leave the state on the server or re-send
EXCHANGE_ID with a new verifier to clear all state, that is, unless
the client includes CLOSE on the list of operations in spo_must_allow
and the server agrees.
The SP4_SSV protection parameters also have:
ssp_hash_algs:
This is the set of algorithms the client supports for the purpose
of computing the digests needed for the internal SSV GSS mechanism
and for the SET_SSV operation. Each algorithm is specified as an
object identifier (OID). The REQUIRED algorithms for a server are
id-sha1, id-sha224, id-sha256, id-sha384, and id-sha512 [RFC4055].
The algorithm the server selects among the set is indicated in
spi_hash_alg, a field of spr_ssv_prot_info. The field
spi_hash_alg is an index into the array ssp_hash_algs. If the
server does not support any of the offered algorithms, it returns
NFS4ERR_HASH_ALG_UNSUPP. If ssp_hash_algs is empty, the server
MUST return NFS4ERR_INVAL.
ssp_encr_algs:
This is the set of algorithms the client supports for the purpose
of providing privacy protection for the internal SSV GSS
mechanism. Each algorithm is specified as an OID. The REQUIRED
algorithm for a server is id-aes256-CBC. The RECOMMENDED
algorithms are id-aes192-CBC and id-aes128-CBC [CSOR_AES]. The
selected algorithm is returned in spi_encr_alg, an index into
ssp_encr_algs. If the server does not support any of the offered
algorithms, it returns NFS4ERR_ENCR_ALG_UNSUPP. If ssp_encr_algs
is empty, the server MUST return NFS4ERR_INVAL. Note that due to
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
previously stated requirements and recommendations on the
relationships between key length and hash length, some
combinations of RECOMMENDED and REQUIRED encryption algorithm and
hash algorithm either SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT be used. Table 1
summarizes the illegal and discouraged combinations.
ssp_window:
This is the number of SSV versions the client wants the server to
maintain (i.e., each successful call to SET_SSV produces a new
version of the SSV). If ssp_window is zero, the server MUST
return NFS4ERR_INVAL. The server responds with spi_window, which
MUST NOT exceed ssp_window, and MUST be at least one. Any
requests on the backchannel or fore channel that are using a
version of the SSV that is outside the window will fail with an
ONC RPC authentication error, and the requester will have to retry
them with the same slot ID and sequence ID.
ssp_num_gss_handles:
This is the number of RPCSEC_GSS handles the server should create
that are based on the GSS SSV mechanism (see section 2.10.9 of
[RFC5661]). It is not the total number of RPCSEC_GSS handles for
the client ID. Indeed, subsequent calls to EXCHANGE_ID will add
RPCSEC_GSS handles. The server responds with a list of handles in
spi_handles. If the client asks for at least one handle and the
server cannot create it, the server MUST return an error. The
handles in spi_handles are not available for use until the client
ID is confirmed, which could be immediately if EXCHANGE_ID returns
EXCHGID4_FLAG_CONFIRMED_R, or upon successful confirmation from
CREATE_SESSION.
While a client ID can span all the connections that are connected
to a server sharing the same eir_server_owner.so_major_id, the
RPCSEC_GSS handles returned in spi_handles can only be used on
connections connected to a server that returns the same the
eir_server_owner.so_major_id and eir_server_owner.so_minor_id on
each connection. It is permissible for the client to set
ssp_num_gss_handles to zero; the client can create more handles
with another EXCHANGE_ID call.
Because each SSV RPCSEC_GSS handle shares a common SSV GSS
context, there are security considerations specific to this
situation discussed in Section 2.10.10 of [RFC5661].
The seq_window (see Section 5.2.3.1 of [RFC2203]) of each
RPCSEC_GSS handle in spi_handle MUST be the same as the seq_window
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
of the RPCSEC_GSS handle used for the credential of the RPC
request that the EXCHANGE_ID operation was sent as a part of.
+-------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| Encryption | MUST NOT be combined | SHOULD NOT be combined |
| Algorithm | with | with |
+-------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
| id-aes128-CBC | | id-sha384, id-sha512 |
| id-aes192-CBC | id-sha1 | id-sha512 |
| id-aes256-CBC | id-sha1, id-sha224 | |
+-------------------+----------------------+------------------------+
Table 1
The arguments include an array of up to one element in length called
eia_client_impl_id. If eia_client_impl_id is present, it contains
the information identifying the implementation of the client.
Similarly, the results include an array of up to one element in
length called eir_server_impl_id that identifies the implementation
of the server. Servers MUST accept a zero-length eia_client_impl_id
array, and clients MUST accept a zero-length eir_server_impl_id
array.
A possible use for implementation identifiers would be in diagnostic
software that extracts this information in an attempt to identify
interoperability problems, performance workload behaviors, or general
usage statistics. Since the intent of having access to this
information is for planning or general diagnosis only, the client and
server MUST NOT interpret this implementation identity information in
a way that affects how the implementation behaves in interacting with
its peer. The client and server are not allowed to depend on the
peer's manifesting a particular allowed behavior based on an
implementation identifier but are required to interoperate as
specified elsewhere in the protocol specification.
Because it is possible that some implementations might violate the
protocol specification and interpret the identity information,
implementations MUST provide facilities to allow the NFSv4 client and
server be configured to set the contents of the nfs_impl_id
structures sent to any specified value.
14.4. Updated Section 18.35.4 of [RFC5661] entitled "IMPLEMENTATION"
A server's client record is a 5-tuple:
1. co_ownerid
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
The client identifier string, from the eia_clientowner
structure of the EXCHANGE_ID4args structure.
2. co_verifier:
A client-specific value used to indicate incarnations (where a
client restart represents a new incarnation), from the
eia_clientowner structure of the EXCHANGE_ID4args structure.
3. principal:
The principal that was defined in the RPC header's credential
and/or verifier at the time the client record was established.
4. client ID:
The shorthand client identifier, generated by the server and
returned via the eir_clientid field in the EXCHANGE_ID4resok
structure.
5. confirmed:
A private field on the server indicating whether or not a
client record has been confirmed. A client record is
confirmed if there has been a successful CREATE_SESSION
operation to confirm it. Otherwise, it is unconfirmed. An
unconfirmed record is established by an EXCHANGE_ID call. Any
unconfirmed record that is not confirmed within a lease period
SHOULD be removed.
The following identifiers represent special values for the fields in
the records.
ownerid_arg:
The value of the eia_clientowner.co_ownerid subfield of the
EXCHANGE_ID4args structure of the current request.
verifier_arg:
The value of the eia_clientowner.co_verifier subfield of the
EXCHANGE_ID4args structure of the current request.
old_verifier_arg:
A value of the eia_clientowner.co_verifier field of a client
record received in a previous request; this is distinct from
verifier_arg.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
principal_arg:
The value of the RPCSEC_GSS principal for the current request.
old_principal_arg:
A value of the principal of a client record as defined by the RPC
header's credential or verifier of a previous request. This is
distinct from principal_arg.
clientid_ret:
The value of the eir_clientid field the server will return in the
EXCHANGE_ID4resok structure for the current request.
old_clientid_ret:
The value of the eir_clientid field the server returned in the
EXCHANGE_ID4resok structure for a previous request. This is
distinct from clientid_ret.
confirmed:
The client ID has been confirmed.
unconfirmed:
The client ID has not been confirmed.
Since EXCHANGE_ID is a non-idempotent operation, we must consider the
possibility that retries occur as a result of a client restart,
network partition, malfunctioning router, etc. Retries are
identified by the value of the eia_clientowner field of
EXCHANGE_ID4args, and the method for dealing with them is outlined in
the scenarios below.
The scenarios are described in terms of the client record(s) a server
has for a given co_ownerid. Note that if the client ID was created
specifying SP4_SSV state protection and EXCHANGE_ID as the one of the
operations in spo_must_allow, then the server MUST authorize
EXCHANGE_IDs with the SSV principal in addition to the principal that
created the client ID.
1. New Owner ID
If the server has no client records with
eia_clientowner.co_ownerid matching ownerid_arg, and
EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A is not set in the
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
EXCHANGE_ID, then a new shorthand client ID (let us call it
clientid_ret) is generated, and the following unconfirmed
record is added to the server's state.
{ ownerid_arg, verifier_arg, principal_arg, clientid_ret,
unconfirmed }
Subsequently, the server returns clientid_ret.
2. Non-Update on Existing Client ID
If the server has the following confirmed record, and the
request does not have EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A set,
then the request is the result of a retried request due to a
faulty router or lost connection, or the client is trying to
determine if it can perform trunking.
{ ownerid_arg, verifier_arg, principal_arg, clientid_ret,
confirmed }
Since the record has been confirmed, the client must have
received the server's reply from the initial EXCHANGE_ID
request. Since the server has a confirmed record, and since
EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A is not set, with the
possible exception of eir_server_owner.so_minor_id, the server
returns the same result it did when the client ID's properties
were last updated (or if never updated, the result when the
client ID was created). The confirmed record is unchanged.
3. Client Collision
If EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A is not set, and if the
server has the following confirmed record, then this request
is likely the result of a chance collision between the values
of the eia_clientowner.co_ownerid subfield of EXCHANGE_ID4args
for two different clients.
{ ownerid_arg, *, old_principal_arg, old_clientid_ret,
confirmed }
If there is currently no state associated with
old_clientid_ret, or if there is state but the lease has
expired, then this case is effectively equivalent to the New
Owner ID case of Paragraph 1. The confirmed record is
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
deleted, the old_clientid_ret and its lock state are deleted,
a new shorthand client ID is generated, and the following
unconfirmed record is added to the server's state.
{ ownerid_arg, verifier_arg, principal_arg, clientid_ret,
unconfirmed }
Subsequently, the server returns clientid_ret.
If old_clientid_ret has an unexpired lease with state, then no
state of old_clientid_ret is changed or deleted. The server
returns NFS4ERR_CLID_INUSE to indicate that the client should
retry with a different value for the
eia_clientowner.co_ownerid subfield of EXCHANGE_ID4args. The
client record is not changed.
4. Replacement of Unconfirmed Record
If the EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A flag is not set, and
the server has the following unconfirmed record, then the
client is attempting EXCHANGE_ID again on an unconfirmed
client ID, perhaps due to a retry, a client restart before
client ID confirmation (i.e., before CREATE_SESSION was
called), or some other reason.
{ ownerid_arg, *, *, old_clientid_ret, unconfirmed }
It is possible that the properties of old_clientid_ret are
different than those specified in the current EXCHANGE_ID.
Whether or not the properties are being updated, to eliminate
ambiguity, the server deletes the unconfirmed record,
generates a new client ID (clientid_ret), and establishes the
following unconfirmed record:
{ ownerid_arg, verifier_arg, principal_arg, clientid_ret,
unconfirmed }
5. Client Restart
If EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A is not set, and if the
server has the following confirmed client record, then this
request is likely from a previously confirmed client that has
restarted.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
{ ownerid_arg, old_verifier_arg, principal_arg,
old_clientid_ret, confirmed }
Since the previous incarnation of the same client will no
longer be making requests, once the new client ID is confirmed
by CREATE_SESSION, byte-range locks and share reservations
should be released immediately rather than forcing the new
incarnation to wait for the lease time on the previous
incarnation to expire. Furthermore, session state should be
removed since if the client had maintained that information
across restart, this request would not have been sent. If the
server supports neither the CLAIM_DELEGATE_PREV nor
CLAIM_DELEG_PREV_FH claim types, associated delegations should
be purged as well; otherwise, delegations are retained and
recovery proceeds according to section 10.2.1 of [RFC5661].
After processing, clientid_ret is returned to the client and
this client record is added:
{ ownerid_arg, verifier_arg, principal_arg, clientid_ret,
unconfirmed }
The previously described confirmed record continues to exist,
and thus the same ownerid_arg exists in both a confirmed and
unconfirmed state at the same time. The number of states can
collapse to one once the server receives an applicable
CREATE_SESSION or EXCHANGE_ID.
+ If the server subsequently receives a successful
CREATE_SESSION that confirms clientid_ret, then the server
atomically destroys the confirmed record and makes the
unconfirmed record confirmed as described in section
16.36.3 of [RFC5661].
+ If the server instead subsequently receives an EXCHANGE_ID
with the client owner equal to ownerid_arg, one strategy is
to simply delete the unconfirmed record, and process the
EXCHANGE_ID as described in the entirety of Section 14.4.
6. Update
If EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A is set, and the server
has the following confirmed record, then this request is an
attempt at an update.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
{ ownerid_arg, verifier_arg, principal_arg, clientid_ret,
confirmed }
Since the record has been confirmed, the client must have
received the server's reply from the initial EXCHANGE_ID
request. The server allows the update, and the client record
is left intact.
7. Update but No Confirmed Record
If EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A is set, and the server
has no confirmed record corresponding ownerid_arg, then the
server returns NFS4ERR_NOENT and leaves any unconfirmed record
intact.
8. Update but Wrong Verifier
If EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A is set, and the server
has the following confirmed record, then this request is an
illegal attempt at an update, perhaps because of a retry from
a previous client incarnation.
{ ownerid_arg, old_verifier_arg, *, clientid_ret, confirmed }
The server returns NFS4ERR_NOT_SAME and leaves the client
record intact.
9. Update but Wrong Principal
If EXCHGID4_FLAG_UPD_CONFIRMED_REC_A is set, and the server
has the following confirmed record, then this request is an
illegal attempt at an update by an unauthorized principal.
{ ownerid_arg, verifier_arg, old_principal_arg, clientid_ret,
confirmed }
The server returns NFS4ERR_PERM and leaves the client record
intact.
15. Updated Section 18.51 of [RFC5661] entitled "Operation 58:
RECLAIM_COMPLETE - Indicates Reclaims Finished"
15.1. Updated Section 18.51.1 of [RFC5661] entitled "ARGUMEBNT"
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
<CODE BEGINS>
struct RECLAIM_COMPLETE4args {
/*
* If rca_one_fs TRUE,
*
* CURRENT_FH: object in
* file system reclaim is
* complete for.
*/
bool rca_one_fs;
};
<CODE ENDS>
15.2. Updated Section 18.51.2 of [RFC5661] entitled "RESULTS"
<CODE BEGINS>
struct RECLAIM_COMPLETE4res {
nfsstat4 rcr_status;
};
<CODE ENDS>
15.3. Updated Section 18.51.3 of [RFC5661] entitled "DESCRIPTION"
A RECLAIM_COMPLETE operation is used to indicate that the client has
reclaimed all of the locking state that it will recover using
reclaim, when it is recovering state due to either a server restart
or the migration of a file system to another server. There are two
types of RECLAIM_COMPLETE operations:
o When rca_one_fs is FALSE, a global RECLAIM_COMPLETE is being done.
This indicates that recovery of all locks that the client held on
the previous server instance have been completed. The current
filehandle need not be set in this case.
o When rca_one_fs is TRUE, a file system-specific RECLAIM_COMPLETE
is being done. This indicates that recovery of locks for a single
fs (the one designated by the current filehandle) due to the
migration of the file system has been completed. Presence of a
current filehandle is required when rca_one_fs is set to TRUE.
When the current filehandle designates a filehandle in a file
system not in the process of migration, the operation returns
NFS4_OK and is otherwise ignored.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
Once a RECLAIM_COMPLETE is done, there can be no further reclaim
operations for locks whose scope is defined as having completed
recovery. Once the client sends RECLAIM_COMPLETE, the server will
not allow the client to do subsequent reclaims of locking state for
that scope and, if these are attempted, will return NFS4ERR_NO_GRACE.
Whenever a client establishes a new client ID and before it does the
first non-reclaim operation that obtains a lock, it MUST send a
RECLAIM_COMPLETE with rca_one_fs set to FALSE, even if there are no
locks to reclaim. If non-reclaim locking operations are done before
the RECLAIM_COMPLETE, an NFS4ERR_GRACE error will be returned.
Similarly, when the client accesses a migrated file system on a new
server, before it sends the first non-reclaim operation that obtains
a lock on this new server, it MUST send a RECLAIM_COMPLETE with
rca_one_fs set to TRUE and current filehandle within that file
system, even if there are no locks to reclaim. If non-reclaim
locking operations are done on that file system before the
RECLAIM_COMPLETE, an NFS4ERR_GRACE error will be returned.
It should be noted that there are situations in which a client needs
to issue both forms of RECLAIM_COMPLETE. An example is an instance
of file system migration in which the file system is migrated to a
server for which the client has no clientid. As a result, the client
needs to obtain a clientid from the server (incurring the
responsibility to do RECLAIM_COMPLETE with rca_one_fs set to FALSE)
as well as RECLAIM_COMPLETE with rca_one_fs set to TRUE to complete
the per-fs grace period associated with the file system migration.
Any locks not reclaimed at the point at which RECLAIM_COMPLETE is
done become non-reclaimable. The client MUST NOT attempt to reclaim
them, either during the current server instance or in any subsequent
server instance, or on another server to which responsibility for
that file system is transferred. If the client were to do so, it
would be violating the protocol by representing itself as owning
locks that it does not own, and so has no right to reclaim. See
Section 8.4.3 of [RFC5661] for a discussion of edge conditions
related to lock reclaim.
By sending a RECLAIM_COMPLETE, the client indicates readiness to
proceed to do normal non-reclaim locking operations. The client
should be aware that such operations may temporarily result in
NFS4ERR_GRACE errors until the server is ready to terminate its grace
period.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
15.4. Updated Section 18.51.4 of [RFC5661] entitled "IMPLEMENTATION"
Servers will typically use the information as to when reclaim
activity is complete to reduce the length of the grace period. When
the server maintains in persistent storage a list of clients that
might have had locks, it is able to use the fact that all such
clients have done a RECLAIM_COMPLETE to terminate the grace period
and begin normal operations (i.e., grant requests for new locks)
sooner than it might otherwise.
Latency can be minimized by doing a RECLAIM_COMPLETE as part of the
COMPOUND request in which the last lock-reclaiming operation is done.
When there are no reclaims to be done, RECLAIM_COMPLETE should be
done immediately in order to allow the grace period to end as soon as
possible.
RECLAIM_COMPLETE should only be done once for each server instance or
occasion of the transition of a file system. If it is done a second
time, the error NFS4ERR_COMPLETE_ALREADY will result. Note that
because of the session feature's retry protection, retries of
COMPOUND requests containing RECLAIM_COMPLETE operation will not
result in this error.
When a RECLAIM_COMPLETE is sent, the client effectively acknowledges
any locks not yet reclaimed as lost. This allows the server to re-
enable the client to recover locks if the occurrence of edge
conditions, as described in Section 8.4.3 of [RFC5661], had caused
the server to disable the client's ability to recover locks.
Because previous descriptions of RECLAIM_COMPLETE were not
sufficiently explicit about the circumstances in which use of
RECLAIM_COMPLETE with rca_one_fs set to TRUE was appropriate, there
have been cases which it has been misused by clients, and cases in
which servers have, in various ways, not responded to such misuse as
described above. While clients SHOULD NOT misuse this feature and
servers SHOULD respond to such misuse as described above,
implementers need to be aware of the following considerations as they
make necessary tradeoffs between interoperability with existing
implementations and proper support for facilities to allow lock
recovery in the event of file system migration.
o When servers have no support for becoming the destination server
of a file system subject to migration, there is no possibility of
a per-fs RECLAIM_COMPLETE being done legitimately and occurrences
of it SHOULD be ignored. However, the negative consequences of
accepting mistaken use are quite limited as long as the does not
issue it before all necessary reclaims are done.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o When a server might become the destination for a file system being
migrated, inappropriate use per-fs RECLAIM_COMPLETE is more
concerning. In the case in which the file system designated is
not within a per-fs grace period, it SHOULD be ignored, with the
negative consequences of accepting it being limited, as in the
case in which migration is not supported. However, if it should
encounter a file system undergoing migration, it cannot be
accepted as if it were a global RECLAIM_COMPLETE without
invalidating its intended use.
16. Security Considerations
The Security Considerations section of [RFC5661] needs the additions
below to properly address some aspects of trunking discovery,
referral, migration and replication.
The possibility that requests to determine the set of network
addresses corresponding to a given server might be interfered with
or have their responses corrupted needs to be taken into account.
In light of this, the following considerations should be taken
note of:
o When DNS is used to convert server named to addresses and
DNSSEC [RFC4033] is not available, the validity of the network
addresses returned cannot be relied upon. However, when the
client uses RPCSEC_GSS to access the designated server, it is
possible for mutual authentication to discover invalid server
addresses provided.
o The fetching of attributes containing file system location
information SHOULD be performed using RPCSEC_GSS with integrity
protection, as previously explained in the Security
Considerations section of [RFC5661]. It is important to note
here that a client making a request of this sort without using
RPCSEC_GSS including integrity protection needs be aware of the
negative consequences of doing so, which can lead to invalid
host names or network addresses being returned. In light of
this, the client needs to recognize that using such returned
location information to access an NFSv4 server without use of
RPCSEC_GSS (i.e. by using AUTH_SYS) poses dangers as it can
result in the client interacting with an unverified network
address posing as an NFSv4 server.
o Despite the fact that it is a REQUIREMENT (of [RFC5661]) that
"implementations" provide "support" for use of RPCSEC_GSS, it
cannot be assumed that use of RPCSEC_GSS is always available
between any particular client-server pair.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 96]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o When a client has the network addresses of a server but not the
associated host names, that would interfere with its ability to
use RPCSEC_GSS.
In light of the above, a server should present file system
location entries that correspond to file systems on other servers
using a host name. This would allow the client to interrogate the
fs_locations on the destination server to obtain trunking
information (as well as replica information) using RPCSEC_GSS with
integrity, validating the name provided while assuring that the
response has not been corrupted.
When RPCSEC_GSS is not available on a server, the client needs to
be aware of the fact that the location entries are subject to
corruption and cannot be relied upon. In the case of a client
being directed to another server after NFS4ERR_MOVED, this could
vitiate the authentication provided by the use of RPCSEC_GSS on
the destination. Even when RPCSEC_GSS authentication is available
on the destination, the server might validly represent itself as
the server to which the client was erroneously directed. Without
a way to decide whether the server is a valid one, the client can
only determine, using RPCSEC_GSS, that the server corresponds to
the name provided, with no basis for trusting that server. As a
result, the client should not use such unverified location entries
as a basis for migration, even though RPCSEC_GSS might be
available on the destination.
When a file system location attribute is fetched upon connecting
with an NFS server, it SHOULD, as stated above, be done using
RPCSEC_GSS with integrity protection. When this not possible, it
is generally best for the client to ignore trunking and replica
information or simply not fetch the location information for these
purposes.
When location information cannot be verified, it can be subjected
to additional filtering to prevent the client from being
inappropriately directed. For example, if a range of network
addresses can be determined that assure that the servers and
clients using AUTH_SYS are subject to the appropriate set of
constrains (e.g. physical network isolation, administrative
controls on the operating systems used), then network addresses in
the appropriate range can be used with others discarded or
restricted in their use of AUTH_SYS.
To summarize considerations regarding the use of RPCSEC_GSS in
fetching location information, we need to consider the following
possibilities for requests to interrogate location information,
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 97]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
with interrogation approaches on the referring and destination
servers arrived at separately:
o The use of RPCSEC_GSS with integrity protection is RECOMMENDED
in all cases, since the absence of integrity protection exposes
the client to the possibility of the results being modified in
transit.
o The use of requests issued without RPCSEC_GSS (i.e. using
AUTH_SYS), while undesirable, may not be avoidable in all
cases. Where the use of the returned information cannot be
avoided, it should be subject to filtering to eliminate the
possibility that the client would treat an invalid address as
if it were a NFSv4 server. The specifics will vary depending
on the degree of network isolation and whether the request is
to the referring or destination servers.
17. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA.
18. References
18.1. Normative References
[CSOR_AES]
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
"Cryptographic Algorithm Object Registration", URL
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/crypto_apps_infra/csor/
algorithms.html, November 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2203] Eisler, M., Chiu, A., and L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol
Specification", RFC 2203, DOI 10.17487/RFC2203, September
1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2203>.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 98]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
[RFC4055] Schaad, J., Kaliski, B., and R. Housley, "Additional
Algorithms and Identifiers for RSA Cryptography for use in
the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 4055,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4055, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4055>.
[RFC5403] Eisler, M., "RPCSEC_GSS Version 2", RFC 5403,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5403, February 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5403>.
[RFC5531] Thurlow, R., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
Specification Version 2", RFC 5531, DOI 10.17487/RFC5531,
May 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5531>.
[RFC5661] Shepler, S., Ed., Eisler, M., Ed., and D. Noveck, Ed.,
"Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1
Protocol", RFC 5661, DOI 10.17487/RFC5661, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5661>.
[RFC7530] Haynes, T., Ed. and D. Noveck, Ed., "Network File System
(NFS) Version 4 Protocol", RFC 7530, DOI 10.17487/RFC7530,
March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7530>.
[RFC7861] Adamson, A. and N. Williams, "Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
Security Version 3", RFC 7861, DOI 10.17487/RFC7861,
November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7861>.
[RFC7931] Noveck, D., Ed., Shivam, P., Lever, C., and B. Baker,
"NFSv4.0 Migration: Specification Update", RFC 7931,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7931, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7931>.
[RFC8166] Lever, C., Ed., Simpson, W., and T. Talpey, "Remote Direct
Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call Version
1", RFC 8166, DOI 10.17487/RFC8166, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8166>.
[RFC8178] Noveck, D., "Rules for NFSv4 Extensions and Minor
Versions", RFC 8178, DOI 10.17487/RFC8178, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8178>.
18.2. Informative References
[I-D.cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update]
Lever, C. and D. Noveck, "NFS version 4.0 Trunking
Update", draft-cel-nfsv4-mv0-trunking-update-00 (work in
progress), November 2017.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 99]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
Appendix A. Classification of Document Sections
Using the classification appearing in Section 3.3, we can proceed
through the current document and classify its sections as listed
below. In this listing, when we refer to a Section X and there is a
Section X.1 within it, the classification of Section X refers to the
part of that section exclusive of subsections. In the case when that
portion is empty, the section is not counted.
o Sections 1 through 4, a total of five sections, are all
explanatory.
o Section 4.1 is a replacement section.
o Section 4.3 is an additional section.
o Section 4.3 is a replacement section.
o Section 4.4 is explanatory.
o Section 4.5 is a replacement section.
o Sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.3, a total of three sections, are all
additional sections.
o Sections 4.5.4 through 4.5.6, a total of three sections, are all
replacement sections.
o Section 4.5.7 is an additional section.
o Section 5 is explanatory.
o Sections 6 and 7 are additional sections.
o Sections 8 through 8.9, a total of ten sections, are all
replacement sections.
o Sections 9 through 11.3, a total of twelve sections, are all
additional sections.
o Section 12.1 is explanatory.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 100]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o Sections 12.2 through 12.2.3, a total of four sections, are all
replacement sections.
o Section 13 is explanatory.
o Sections 13.1 and 13.2 are replacement sections.
o Sections 13.3 and 13.4 are editing sections.
o Sections 13.5 and 13.6 is explanatory.
o Section 13.7 is a replacement section, which consists of a total
of six sections.
o Section 14 is a replacement section, which consists of a total of
five sections.
o Section 15 is a replacement section, which consists of a total of
five sections.
o Section 16 is an editing section.
o Section 17 through Acknowledgments, a total of six sections, are
all explanatory.
To summarize:
o There are seventeen explanatory sections.
o There are thirty-seven replacement sections.
o There are eighteen additional sections.
o There are three editing sections.
Appendix B. Updates to [RFC5661]
In this appendix, we proceed through [RFC5661] identifying sections
as unchanged, modified, deleted, or replaced and indicating where
additional sections from the current document would appear in an
eventual consolidated description of NFSv4.1. In this presentation,
when section X is referred to, it denotes that section plus all
included subsections. When it is necessary to refer to the part of a
section outside any included subsections, the exclusion is noted
explicitly.
o Section 1 is unmodified except that Section 1.7.3.3 is to be
replaced by Section 13.1 from the current document.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 101]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o Section 2 is unmodified except for the specific items listed
below:
o Section 2.10.4 is replaced by Section 13.2 from the current
document.
o Section 2.10.5 is modified as discussed in Section 13.4 of the
current document.
o Sections 3 through 10 are unchanged.
o Section 11 is extensively modified as discussed below.
o Section 11, exclusive of subsections, is replaced by Sections
4.1 and 4.2 from the current document.
o Section 11.1 is replaced by Section 4.3 from the current
document.
o Sections 11.2, 11.3, 11.3.1, and 11.3.2 are unchanged.
o Section 11.4 is replaced by Section 4.5 from the current
document. For details regarding subsections see below.
o New sections corresponding to Sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.3
from the current document appear next.
o Section 11.4.1 is replaced by Section 4.5.4 from the current
document.
o Section 11.4.2 is replaced by Section 4.5.5 from the current
document.
o Section 11.4.3 is replaced by Section 4.5.6 from the current
document.
o A new section corresponding to Section 4.5.7 from the
current document appears next.
o Section 11.5 is to be deleted.
o Section 11.6 is unchanged.
o New sections corresponding to Sections 6 and 7 from the current
document appear next.
o Section 11.7 is replaced by Section 8 from the current
document. For details regarding subsections see below. This
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 102]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
section (with included subsections) would appear as
Section 11.9 in an eventual consolidated document. In addition
to the shift from Section 11.7 to Section 11.9, subsections
within it would be affected by the deletion of Section 11.7.2
and the move of Section 11.7.7 to be the last sub-section.
o Section 11.7.1 is replaced by Section 8.1 from the current
document. In an eventual consolidated document, it would
appear as Section 11.9.1.
o Sections 11.7.2, 11.7.2.1, and 11.7.2.2 are deleted.
o Section 11.7.3 is replaced by Section 8.2 from the current
document. In an eventual consolidated document, it would
appear as Section 11.9.2.
o Section 11.7.4 is replaced by Section 8.3 from the current
document. In an eventual consolidated document, it would
appear as Section 11.9.3.
o Sections 11.7.5 and 11.7.5.1 are replaced by Sections 8.4
and 8.4.1 respectively, from the current document. In an
eventual consolidated document, they would appear as
Sections 11.9.4 and 11.9.4.1.
o Section 11.7.6 is replaced by Section 8.5 from the current
document. In an eventual consolidated document, it would
appear as Section 11.9.5.
o Section 11.7.7, exclusive of subsections, is replaced by
Section 8.9 from the current document. Sections 11.7.7.1
and 11.7.7.2 are unchanged. Because this section will
become the last sub-section of the replacement for
Section 11.7, it would appear as Section 11.9.9 in an
eventual consolidated document.
o Section 11.7.8 is replaced by Section 8.6 from the current
document. In an eventual consolidated document, it would
appear as Section 11.9.6.
o Section 11.7.9 is replaced by Section 8.7 from the current
document. In an eventual consolidated document, it would
appear as Section 11.9.7.
o Section 11.7.10 is replaced by Section 8.8 from the current
document. In an eventual consolidated document, it would
appear as Section 11.9.8.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 103]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o New sections corresponding to Sections 9, 10, and 11 from the
current document appear next as additional sub-sections of
Section 11. Each of these has subsections, so there is a total
of seventeen sections added. These sections would appear as
Sections 11.10, 11.11, and 11.12 respectively in an eventual
consolidated document.
o Sections 11.8, 11.8.1, 11.8.2, and 11.9, are unchanged although
they would be renumber as Sections 11.13 (with included
subsections) and 11.14 in an eventual consolidated document.
o Sections 11.10, 11.10.1, 11.10.2, and 11.10.3 are replaced by
Sections 12.2 through 12.2.3 from the current document. These
sections would appear as Section 11.15 (with included
subsections) in an eventual consolidated document.
o Section 11.11 is unchanged, although it would appear as
Section 11.16 in an eventual consolidated document.
o Sections 12 through 14 are unchanged.
o Section 15 is unmodified except that
* The description of NFS4ERR_MOVED in Section 15.1 is revised as
described in Section 13.3 of the current document.
* The description of the reclaim-related errors in section 15.1.9
is replaced by the revised descriptions in Section 13.7 of the
current document.
o Sections 16 and 17 are unchanged.
o Section 18 is unmodified except for the following:
* Section 18.35 is replaced by Section 14 in the current
document.
* Section 18.51 is replaced by Section 15 in the current
document.
o Sections 19 through 23 are unchanged.
In terms of top-level sections, exclusive of appendices:
o There is one heavily modified top-level section (Section 11)
o There are four other modified top-level sections (Sections 1, 2,
15, and 18).
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 104]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
o The other eighteen top-level sections are unchanged.
The disposition of sections of [RFC5661] is summarized in the
following table which provides counts of sections replaced, added,
deleted, modified, or unchanged. Separate counts are provided for:
o Top-level sections.
o Sections with TOC entries.
o Sections within Section 11.
o Sections outside Section 11.
In this table, the counts for top-level sections and TOC entries are
for sections including subsections while other counts are for
sections exclusive of included subsections.
+------------+------+------+--------+------------+--------+
| Status | Top | TOC | in 11 | not in 11 | Total |
+------------+------+------+--------+------------+--------+
| Replaced | 0 | 6 | 21 | 15 | 36 |
| Added | 0 | 5 | 24 | 0 | 24 |
| Deleted | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| Modified | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Unchanged | 18 | 210 | 12 | 910 | 922 |
| in RFC5661 | 23 | 220 | 37 | 927 | 964 |
+------------+------+------+--------+------------+--------+
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the important role of Andy Adamson of
Netapp in clarifying the need for trunking discovery functionality,
and exploring the role of the file system location attributes in
providing the necessary support.
The authors also wish to acknowledge the work of Xuan Qi of Oracle
with NFSv4.1 client and server prototypes of transparent state
migration functionality.
The authors wish to thank others that brought attention to important
issues. The comments of Trond Myklebust of Primary Data related to
trunking helped to clarify the role of DNS in trunking discovery.
Rick Macklem's comments brought attention to problems in the handling
of the per-fs version of RECLAIM_COMPLETE.
The authors wish to thank Olga Kornievskaia of Netapp for her helpful
review comments.
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 105]
Internet-Draft nfsv4.1-msns-update February 2019
Authors' Addresses
David Noveck (editor)
NetApp
1601 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02451
United States of America
Phone: +1 781 572 8038
Email: davenoveck@gmail.com
Charles Lever
Oracle Corporation
1015 Granger Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
United States of America
Phone: +1 248 614 5091
Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com
Noveck & Lever Expires August 9, 2019 [Page 106]
