From nobody Thu Feb 27 03:24:05 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Z3HHb1XT9z5pdR3 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 03:43:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cy.schubert@cschubert.com) Received: from omta003.cacentral1.a.cloudfilter.net (omta001.cacentral1.a.cloudfilter.net [3.97.99.32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "Client", Issuer "CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Z3HHZ6DXpz47mL; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 03:43:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cy.schubert@cschubert.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from shw-obgw-4004a.ext.cloudfilter.net ([10.228.9.227]) by cmsmtp with ESMTPS id nL2MtUzaJ9JM2nUnytwMAY; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 03:43:22 +0000 Received: from spqr.komquats.com ([70.66.136.217]) by cmsmtp with ESMTPSA id nUnjtVHDsJhBPnUnkthjFW; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 03:43:22 +0000 X-Auth-User: cschuber X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=QY3Fvdbv c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=67bfdf5a a=h7br+8Ma+Xn9xscxy5znUg==:117 a=h7br+8Ma+Xn9xscxy5znUg==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=T2h4t0Lz3GQA:10 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=EkcXrb_YAAAA:8 a=YxBL1-UpAAAA:8 a=5RMlkMYnFiPG8oxYCK0A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=LK5xJRSDVpKd5WXXoEvA:22 a=Ia-lj3WSrqcvXOmTRaiG:22 Received: from slippy.cwsent.com (slippy [10.1.1.91]) by spqr.komquats.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD18B1DF; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:24:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by slippy.cwsent.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B41B9313; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:24:05 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.8+dev Reply-to: Cy Schubert From: Cy Schubert X-os: FreeBSD X-Sender: cy@cwsent.com X-URL: http://www.cschubert.com/ To: Gleb Smirnoff cc: Cy Schubert , Rick Macklem , Chris , Lars Tunkrans , FreeBSD CURRENT , Toomas Soome , Steve Rikli Subject: Re: RFC: mount_nfs failure due to dns not running yet In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Gleb Smirnoff message dated "Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:25:34 -0800." List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:24:05 -0800 Message-Id: <20250227032405.B41B9313@slippy.cwsent.com> X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfCnAFfJRDLumDIi9WB8Ea30o48zQCpDeokpW+Bi3/HKrGmGjuGhpa3Ygn4zNfknwDOppa461F745j03LEHZoYlELqB3RznXhQvmB4u/Esc9wIPxvqUdt 7da3MA8jnAtwT6Dw1W+6y4IdAgfm8WJ2gY2u0A2KQIlUq1+MywGNZsmIB1wW0m3BeB4W89cCJxbcKFV4HH4qzdqeXrs90KbR5bMGxzMOlYj3kBQc12Y1ZbIi 0tm4S3EVqCgDp+xvi6hxnjS1YRskztoC0JXWZbGnORTb8X5W6WPFbC9+tW39/oVfoIMw+7S2OlIVSnrNwboigz9csx1h6Daf73nOtthreGpaRa7DoiHTUsuD FGsZpkXf X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:16509, ipnet:3.96.0.0/15, country:US] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Z3HHZ6DXpz47mL X-Spamd-Bar: ---- In message , Gleb Smirnoff writes: > Hi guys, > > replying to all, asnwering Chris and Cy emails that I did not reply earlier. > I > trimmed quoting, but of course I've read your emails! > > Point 1. Please let's forget about 'late' option and any other rc(8) hints a > nd > magic. As I already explained the problem can (and usually does) live outsid > e > of the particular host that does the mount. It could be a boot race of a bun > ch > of networking equipment, it could be some other network outage, etc. > > Point 2. Both Chris and Cy said that this is not a bug, since it was there fo > r > so many years. Sorry, this argument doesn't buys me. It is a typical > cognitive distortion named "normalization" or "desensitization," where an > individual becomes so accustomed to a negative situation that they no longer > recognize it as problematic. I am also affected by that, and it is very good > practice sometimes to force yourself to look at something with a fresh look. > With a fresh look a suggestion to hardcode IP addresses in hosts(5) or doesn' > t > look scalable neither modern option. I totally agree that in certain setups > it > is the right way to do, but not always. This argument makes the point that the industry is wrong. I don't quite buy that either. I suppose more investigation would be required to find out why. On the flip side, when I was working on Solaris we didn't rely solely on DNS. We used NIS+ built on top of ONC+ (not to be confused with NIS built on top of ONC). There we had multiple NIS+ replicas on each network segment. In today's world we use LDAP. > > Point 3. I got our concern on a mount_nfs(8) blocking on a DNS resolution > viewed as a POLA violation. So I suggest a trade-off: let's isolate the > retrying behavior only to the background mode. That would fix the problem of > machine booting without mounts and is very unlikely to affect anyones POLA > feelings: > > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D49145 This would be acceptable. If an admin does have a chronic DNS issues, said admin could add the IP to hosts(5). > > As the review text notes at the end we got a problem in the libc > getaddrinfo(3). Rick also noticed it earlier when making his patch. Our > resolver can't tell us a negative answer versus a timeour. This definitely i > s > a problem and I already started investigating it. But definitely out of scop > e > of NFS. > > -- > Gleb Smirnoff -- Cheers, Cy Schubert FreeBSD UNIX: Web: https://FreeBSD.org NTP: Web: https://nwtime.org e^(i*pi)+1=0