From: "Lever, Charles" Subject: RE: NLM GRANT callback using AUTH_NULL is rejected Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:20:48 -0800 Message-ID: <044B81DE141D7443BCE91E8F44B3C1E2013327B7@exsvl02.hq.netapp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Cc: , "Olaf Kirch" , Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1EcmVV-0006cX-W3 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:21:05 -0800 Received: from mx1.netapp.com ([216.240.18.38]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1EcmVP-00087x-UE for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:21:05 -0800 To: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 07:38:22AM -0800, Lever, Charles wrote: > > our filer sends NLM GRANTED callbacks back to clients using=20 > AUTH_NULL > > authentication. Linux clients always seem to reject these=20 > callbacks. > >=20 > > parsing through fs/lockd and net/sunrpc, i see a comment=20 > that indicates > > that AUTH_NULL RPC requests are subject to IP access control (a la > > /etc/exports). theoretically, if lockd doesn't register=20 > the filer in > > the ip_map cache, then all the filer's callbacks will be rejected, > > right? >=20 > See >=20 > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=3Dlinux-nfs&m=3D110608174305835&w=3D2 >=20 > and following messages. These appear to have gone into 2.6 in early > March sometime, so I assume that was about 2.6.12? thanks bruce. ok, these appear not to be in RHEL 4 update 2, which is what our internal test happens to be using at the moment. i would assume that an FC4 system running the latest update would already have this series of patches integrated...? was it the judgement of the community that no IP address checking for AUTH_NULL callbacks is better than having at least *some* sanity checking? seems reasonable to me to register the IP address of the file server so that not just any joe IP address can grant locks. (limitations of authentication via IP address notwithstanding). obtw, did you happen to have a test to see if GRANTED callbacks were being accepted after your patch is applied? that will save me the trouble of working up a test myself. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today Register for a JBoss Training Course. Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005. For more info visit: http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7628&alloc_id=16845&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs