From: "NeilBrown" Subject: Re: RESTRICTED_STATD Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:08:33 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <88db5e555cc43593e70d0981238e5ef8.squirrel@neil.brown.name> References: <6972A199-D332-4E74-9D47-70EC2CA381FE@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "Steve Dickson" , "Linux NFS Mailing List" To: "Chuck Lever" Return-path: Received: from ns2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38784 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751285AbYHZVIl (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:08:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <6972A199-D332-4E74-9D47-70EC2CA381FE@oracle.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, August 27, 2008 6:41 am, Chuck Lever wrote: > Hi guys- > > I was wondering if anyone ever builds nfs-utils with RESTRICTED_STATD > undefined these days. It seems totally insecure to do. Is it still > necessary to keep this? > > It would be easier to understand, update, and test the logic in utils/ > statd/monitor.c (IPv6-wise) if we could remove the unused parts of > this code. > > I propose removing RESTRICTED_STATD, leaving in the secure version of > the code permanently and removing the insecure parts that are left out > when RESTRICTED_STATD is undefined. > > Thoughts? I fully agree and support the idea! NeilBrown