From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [patch] fix statd -n Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:16:07 -0400 Message-ID: <20080429161607.GA20420@fieldses.org> References: <24c1515f0804170938s23fe3ea3pfe77355ed01d8bbf@mail.gmail.com> <20080418173646.GC19038@fieldses.org> <480902CA.1070805@redhat.com> <48090356.9020703@redhat.com> <20080418203225.GD28277@fieldses.org> <24c1515f0804181346g5867fa1fqfbbcd13af25027cb@mail.gmail.com> <20080421000214.GA5453@fieldses.org> <24c1515f0804281352u2d04ac89i820dc6807dde39f1@mail.gmail.com> <4817346F.5000101@netapp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Janne Karhunen , Peter Staubach , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Wendy Cheng Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:52160 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932650AbYD2QQY (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:16:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4817346F.5000101@netapp.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 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.