From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: segfault in mount with CITI patch Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:08:30 -0500 Message-ID: <1135292911.3685.4.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <43AA01AA.3060705@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1EpZmC-0007Du-Lj for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:23:12 -0800 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16] ident=7411) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1EpZmB-0000jO-9c for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:23:12 -0800 To: Vince Busam In-Reply-To: <43AA01AA.3060705@google.com> 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 Wed, 2005-12-21 at 17:30 -0800, Vince Busam wrote: > Is nfsvers=3,mountvers=2 even OK to do? If not, mount should print an error instead of > segfault. Do you mean that the kernel Oopses, or is it really just a userland segfault. If the latter, we really don't care too much: mixing nfsvers=3 and mountvers=2 is just silly. Sure, we can put a check in util-linux, but there is no security implication. OTOH, an Oops will be a security problem. Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs