Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44692 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760602Ab3DIRfF (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:35:05 -0400 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r39HZ4V9027357 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 13:35:05 -0400 Message-ID: <5164514A.7020606@RedHat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:35:06 -0400 From: Steve Dickson MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simo Sorce CC: Linux NFS Mailing list 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> In-Reply-To: <1365528308.20560.42.camel@willson.li.ssimo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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... steved.