From: "Janne Karhunen" Subject: Re: [patch] fix statd -n Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 08:57:57 -0400 Message-ID: <24c1515f0805010557o5daf72f7hc3db5bf85354898e@mail.gmail.com> References: <24c1515f0804170938s23fe3ea3pfe77355ed01d8bbf@mail.gmail.com> <20080418173646.GC19038@fieldses.org> <480902CA.1070805@redhat.com> <48090356.9020703@redhat.com> <20080418203225.GD28277@fieldses.org> <24c1515f0804181346g5867fa1fqfbbcd13af25027cb@mail.gmail.com> <20080421000214.GA5453@fieldses.org> <24c1515f0804281352u2d04ac89i820dc6807dde39f1@mail.gmail.com> <4817346F.5000101@netapp.com> <20080429161607.GA20420@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "Wendy Cheng" , "Peter Staubach" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.181]:28753 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754316AbYEAM56 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 08:57:58 -0400 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j37so1013419waf.23 for ; Thu, 01 May 2008 05:57:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080429161607.GA20420@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:16 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > Do we really have to add so many lines of the code just to fix "statd > > -n" Which is why I offered the small patch initially; it was mentioned that intrusiveness does not matter if it can be kept in userspace. > > ? Maybe we should go back to the basics by understanding the > > requirement of this command ? So why do we need it (i.e. what kind of > > bad things we'll see if we don't fix this) ? Some short description > > would help. > > I recall two reasons for -n given in this thread; I think one was just > security (maybe you don't want statd listening on some ports, for > whatever reason. The other was a code comment quoted here: That being one.. > http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=120854237320424&w=2 > > > "This is required to support clients that ignore the mon_name in > the statd protocol but use the source address from the request > packet." This another, and the third the fact that this way mon_name stays the same on server failover to node that has different name. It identifies the server instance.. > Which I don't completely understand. I guess it was meant as a way to > ensure that *outgoing* packets are sent from the correct (floating) ip > address? Right. -- // Janne