Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49312 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935459Ab3DITM4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:12:56 -0400 Message-ID: <51646838.3050209@RedHat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:12:56 -0400 From: Steve Dickson MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "J. Bruce Fields" CC: Simo Sorce , Linux NFS Mailing list , jlayton@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Avoid reverse resolution for server name 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> <1365528308.20560.42.camel@willson.li.ssimo.org> <5164514A.7020606@RedHat.com> <20130409185445.GA3800@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20130409185445.GA3800@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/04/13 14:54, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:35:06PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: >> >> >> On 09/04/13 13:25, Simo Sorce wrote: >>> 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 ? >> I was thinking no. Leaves the default as is and used the -z to avoid the >> lookup... >> >> I'm struggling with how big of a problem this really is, so why should be break >> existing environments? I'm no DNS expert but I thinking not have PTR is >> a DNS config issue... but again I'm no expert... > > Argh, no, one away or another the default needs to be to not do the PTR > lookup. Fine... > > The transition Simo's using was Jeff's suggestion. Let's just stick to > that if we don't have a good reason. Yeah... I would like to avoid adding to flags... I don't think both are needed. > > (But I don't have strong opinions about how to do it either. I'd > actually be OK with being harsh and just switching to the new behavior > without any option.) My crutch is I'm not a big DNS guy so I'm not sure how much breakage would occur... So I would rather be on the safe side and give people a way to go back... steved.