From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [patch] fix statd -n Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:32:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20080418203225.GD28277@fieldses.org> References: <24c1515f0804170938s23fe3ea3pfe77355ed01d8bbf@mail.gmail.com> <20080418173646.GC19038@fieldses.org> <480902CA.1070805@redhat.com> <48090356.9020703@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Janne Karhunen , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Staubach Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:41240 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751417AbYDRUc3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:32:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48090356.9020703@redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 04:23:50PM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: > Peter Staubach wrote: >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Janne Karhunen wrote: >>> >>>> Apparently lockd does not expect statd to be used with -n >>>> switch: statd is expected to bind loopback, always. Attached >>>> patches show one (IPv4 specific) way of fixing it. Comments? >>>> >>> >>> Maybe statd really should always bind to the loopback interface? Is >>> there any reason not to? >>> >>> >> >> I think that statd needs to be reachable from clients >> and/or servers when the state changes on the other end. >> >> This "-n" option really assumes that the system is single-homed >> though, doesn't it? Binding to one particular interface will >> make it so that statd will not be reachable via any of the other >> interfaces on the system. >> >> Perhaps statd should always bind to the loopback interface >> if it doesn't bind to INADDR_ANY? >> > > Sorry, not very clear. Perhaps statd should bind to the loopback > interface in addition to any other interfaces if it doesn't bind > to INADDR_ANY. Right, that's what would make the most sense to me. Janne, is there any reason that wouldn't solve your problem? --b.