Re: [patch] fix statd -n

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:45:03AM -0400, Wendy Cheng wrote:
> Janne Karhunen wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:02 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>>  > >  Right, that's what would make the most sense to me.  Janne, is there any
>>>  > >  reason that wouldn't solve your problem?
>>>  >
>>>  > I didn't get the idea. So the idea is to use multiple sockets,
>>>  > one bound to LOOPBACK and one to external interface?
>>>
>>>  I suppose so.  One socket would be for communication for the local
>>>  kernel nfsd, one for communication with statd peers.
>>>     
>>
>> Finally got around to it again. Attached patch takes a
>> shot at the two socket approach. Patch is a draft to
>> see what you guys would really think about this
>> approach.
>>
>>   
> Do we really have to add so many lines of the code just to fix "statd  
> -n" ? Maybe we should go back to the basics by understanding the  
> requirement of this command ? So why do we need it (i.e. what kind of  
> bad things we'll see if we don't fix this) ? Some short description  
> would help. 

I recall two reasons for -n given in this thread; I think one was just
security (maybe you don't want statd listening on some ports, for
whatever reason.  The other was a code comment quoted here:

	http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=120854237320424&w=2

	"This is required to support clients that ignore the mon_name in
	the statd protocol but use the source address from the request
	packet."

Which I don't completely understand.  I guess it was meant as a way to
ensure that *outgoing* packets are sent from the correct (floating) ip
address?

--b.