Re: Portmap - was Re: Does mountd/statd really need to listen on a privileged port??

[Olaf Kirch <olaf.kirch@oracle.com>]

On Friday 27 April 2007 16:01, Peter Staubach wrote:
> There isn't a clear cut right answer, but the described behavior is
> at least definitive.  There were a _lot_ of discussions inside of
> Sun, comp.protocols.nfs, and at Connectathons regarding this issue,
> without clear resolutions that were better than the current behavior.

At least authunix_create should return NULL, not make the
application die with SIGABRT.

Yes, authentication may fail, but it's better to try and
fail than give up without trying.

[...]
> This version of the library may or may not be MT-safe, but newer
> versions are definitely safe.  Perhaps the Bull people could tell
> us how old the library is?
[...]
> Here is a place where a newer version of the TI-RPC library would help.
[...]
> Yup, that was a bug, and has already been fixed in a newer version of the
> library.
[...]
> This seems like another bug that is already fixed in newer versions of
> TI-RPC.
[...]
> This seems like a porting issue to me.  Thank you for pointing it
> out so that it can get addressed.

You see why I'm arguing against just replacing working code
with something else, without understanding the ramifications?

Seems like at least it's time for a mor recent tirpc version.

> > That's where we disagree :-) I think ripping out the glibc
> > code and replacing it will cause a lot of maintenance for
> > the distros.
> 
> I am curious what basis that you are using for this?  Why will this
> cause either more or less maintenance for distros?

I admit this is not founded on anything quantifiable. Let's say
based on experience, if you replace 22,000 lines of code used
heavily by almost everyone, there's going to be considerable
churn. If you just rip out the getgroups change in glibc and
go back to the abort() behavior we discsussed above, I'd bet
there will be level3 support calls at $your_favorite_linux_vendor
that force you to put that code back in.

> It seems to me that this would give us some RPC code, which we could
> support, which was newer than the current glibc code, and would have
> more people working on and supporting it.  That all seems like goodness
> to me.  The current situation is that we can't maintain the RPC code
> at all, which is not goodness at all.

I'm all for forking the sunrpc code. I'm just not convinced that
it is a good idea to replace code that is arguably stable with
something else which may have been tested on Solaris but not
on Linux.

Olaf
-- 
Olaf Kirch  |  --- o --- Nous sommes du soleil we love when we play
okir@lst.de |    / | \   sol.dhoop.naytheet.ah kin.ir.samse.qurax

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs