Listing multiple NFS clients can be confusing to the user

  • Hi,


    I was about to log a bug about this, until the bug template text told me to get permission from a moderator on the forum first... so that's what I'm hoping for.


    The bug will say...


    -----------------

    On a fresh install of openmediavault_7.0-32-amd64.iso with all updates ran immediately after...


    If you make an NFS share and want multiple subnets to be able to access it, you might think to make one share from the perspective of the user interface.


    This is because when making that share, although the field says 'Client' (non-plural) the description says "Clients allowed to..." (plural).


    In fact if you put in two clients seperated by a space e.g. '192.168.0.0/24 10.0.0.0/24' then what gets written out to /etc/exports is...


    /export/myshare 192.168.0.0/24 10.0.0.0/24(fsid=000ab111-00cd-0e0f-a00b-00cde000fa0,rw,subtree_check,insecure)


    Which (as I understand it) is wrong because it should be...


    /export/myshare 192.168.0.0/24(fsid=000ab111-00cd-0e0f-a00b-00cde000fa0,rw,subtree_check,insecure) 10.0.0.0/24(fsid=000ab111-00cd-0e0f-a00b-00cde000fa0,rw,subtree_check,insecure)


    So the actual way to do it (what I expect is the intended way, which is fine by me) is to make two shares on the user interface for the same shared folder for each client, and then /etc/exports is written out correctly.


    Essentially the bugs are...


    1) Using the term 'clients' for the description of the field 'Client' is confusing and should be changed.

    2) It probably shouldn't accept a character like a space (or anything that isn't in any of the expected formats for a client) in the client field, making it clearer whats needed.

    -----------------


    Is this OK to log as a bug?

  • KM0201

    Approved the thread.
    • New
    • Official Post

    Is this OK to log as a bug?

    No.

    NFS Share improved UI documentation / regex check · Issue #1673 · openmediavault/openmediavault
    Please only open an issue here, when advised by a moderator in openmediavault forum. - yea, no - see my comment on this down below Requests for support and…
    github.com

    omv 7.4.0-1 sandworm | 64 bit | 6.8 proxmox kernel

    plugins :: omvextrasorg 7.0 | kvm 7.0.14 | compose 7.2.1 | k8s 7.2.0-1 | cputemp 7.0.2 | mergerfs 7.0.5 | scripts 7.0.8


    omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github - changelogs


    Please try ctrl-shift-R and read this before posting a question.

    Please put your OMV system details in your signature.
    Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!

    • New
    • Official Post

    1) Clients is correct because if you are using a CIDR, then all IP addresses that are matching can access the NFS.

    2) No, there are reasons why OMV has implemented it that way.

  • 1)


    If that's the way it should be looked at... then wouldn't it say 'Clients' for both the field name and the description?


    Also in terms of the context of how the actual configuration entities are referred to (and not the actual computers you'd call an NFS 'client') in the manual page (that the web interface itself links to... in the same description were talking about)... it says things like...


    Quote

    Each line contains an export point and a whitespace-separated list of clients allowed to mount the file system at that point. Each listed client may be immediately followed by a parenthesized, comma-separated list of export options for that client.


    So from that perspective it would seem you're using the term 'client' and 'clients' differently to how that very page that the web interface links to is using it?


    If anything someone will read... "Clients allowed to mount the file system, e.g. 192.168.178.0/24. Please check the manual page for more details."


    Then they'll read the manual page and think they can state multiple whitespace-seperated entries providing they confirm to one of the machine name formats listed.


    2)


    Care to share? :D

    • New
    • Official Post

    Care to share?

    They are listed in the github issue I linked to.

    omv 7.4.0-1 sandworm | 64 bit | 6.8 proxmox kernel

    plugins :: omvextrasorg 7.0 | kvm 7.0.14 | compose 7.2.1 | k8s 7.2.0-1 | cputemp 7.0.2 | mergerfs 7.0.5 | scripts 7.0.8


    omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github - changelogs


    Please try ctrl-shift-R and read this before posting a question.

    Please put your OMV system details in your signature.
    Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!

  • Would anyone like to read my original message again... without any preconceptions about what you think I am saying (based on perhaps what others have said in the past)... and instead for what I have actually said?


    I haven't advocated that it should support multiple clients (space separated or otherwise) in one field. I even said at one point... "what I expect is the intended way, which is fine by me" in the context of just making multiple NFS shares with one client per each.


    I have advocated that by removing the ability to put a space in that field it prevents people thinking that they can specify multiple clients.


    I know ryecoaaron has linked to that prior issue on Github... but I completely agree with the outcome that and was not contesting it... yet it doesn't explain why a space is allowed in the field! (thus confusing people)


    I'll assume if you're happy for me to make a PR with a suggested rephrasing of the purpose of this field and how it is used... that I can attach that to an issue on Github asking that any kind of space or other delimiter be considered invalid input? (as I was originally requesting to do)

    • New
    • Official Post

    yet it doesn't explain why a space is allowed in the field!

    You are getting awful angry about minor issues. Since it is difficult to write a regex that allows all client possibilities, it was easier to have no regex. Unfortunately this does allow a space. Please file a PR if you have a better solution.

    omv 7.4.0-1 sandworm | 64 bit | 6.8 proxmox kernel

    plugins :: omvextrasorg 7.0 | kvm 7.0.14 | compose 7.2.1 | k8s 7.2.0-1 | cputemp 7.0.2 | mergerfs 7.0.5 | scripts 7.0.8


    omv-extras.org plugins source code and issue tracker - github - changelogs


    Please try ctrl-shift-R and read this before posting a question.

    Please put your OMV system details in your signature.
    Please don't PM for support... Too many PMs!

  • What you are seeing is frustration that, until hopefully your last post, it's as though whomever is replying has somehow read the complete opposite position that I am talking about.


    Thank you for acknowledging that the allowing of a space is unfortunate at least.


    I'll put something together shortly and file it on github.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!