Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Avoid reverse resolution for server name
From: Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>
To: Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>
Cc: Linux NFS Mailing list <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <51644CC5.3070609@RedHat.com>
References: <515B2F8D.3030302@RedHat.com>
	 <1364931149-18484-2-git-send-email-simo@redhat.com>
	 <5162C8A5.4030307@RedHat.com>
	 <1365430116.20560.6.camel@willson.li.ssimo.org>
	 <51644CC5.3070609@RedHat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:25:08 -0400
Message-ID: <1365528308.20560.42.camel@willson.li.ssimo.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 13:15 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> 
> On 08/04/13 10:08, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 09:39 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >>
> >> On 02/04/13 15:32, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>> A NFS client should be able to work properly even if the DNS Reverse record
> >>> for the server is not set. There is no excuse to forcefully prevent that
> >>> from working when it can.
> >>>
> >>> This patch adds a new pair of options (-z/-Z) that allow to turn on/off
> >>> DNS reverse resolution for determining the server name to use with GSSAPI.
> >> Again, please tell me why we need the -Z flag when that is the default?
> > 
> > The idea is to switch the default in the code at some point, so then -Z
> > will be needed to get back to the original behavior.
> I'm thinking that's what major version number changes are for... not flags...
> 
> > 
> > The idea is that by having both flags a distribution may choose to
> > decide now what behavior they want and use the relative flag. Then even
> > if we change the default their configuration will not "break".
> I'll do the work to remove the option and repost the patches..

As you wish, I do not have hard preferences, should we take the bait and
also by default *not* do PTR lookups ?

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York