Possible issue with nfs-utils patch: mountd: Replace "struct hostent" with "struct addrinfo"

[Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>]

Hi Chuck,
 I've been reviewing some recent nfs-utils commits prior to possibly
 including them in a suse product.

I think there is part of 

commit fbc1b2c8e47ee9371c3565b266f1386575b46920
Author: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue Jun 22 12:43:01 2010 -0400

    mountd: Replace "struct hostent" with "struct addrinfo"

which is wrong.  However I'm not sure if it actually breaks something or if
the relevant code is effectively dead.

The questionable chunk is in check_netgroup

 
        /* If hname is ip address convert to FQDN */
-       if (inet_aton(hname, &addr.sin_addr) &&
-          (nhp = gethostbyaddr((const char *)&(addr.sin_addr),
-           sizeof(addr.sin_addr), AF_INET))) {
-               hname = nhp->h_name;
+       tmp = host_pton(hname);
+       if (tmp != NULL) {
+               freeaddrinfo(tmp);
                if (innetgr(netgroup, hname, NULL, NULL))
                        return 1;
        }


The new code is effectively a no-op - it conditionally calls
                if (innetgr(netgroup, hname, NULL, NULL))
                        return 1;

and if that succeeds, it would have already succeeded near the top of the
function so we would not get here.

The original code checked if 'hname' looked like an IP address.  If it did it
looked up the canonical name and checked that for membership in the netgroup.
I'm not entirely sure when check_netgroup (or client_check) would be called
with such a string in a context where doing a lookup would make sense.  I
hunted through the code and found some rmtab manipulations that could result
in this, but I'm not sure.

This code was originally added about 9 years ago in what is now commit 
86ae664e66c439354cb4f959e9f289059e7760a4
which blames it on Anne Milicia <milicia@missioncriticallinux.com> without
any real explanation.  I don't suppose Anne is still around ???

Did you think about this at all when you made the patch?  Do you have any
thoughts about whether that section of code is still needed?  I don't feel
very comfortable removing it without knowing why it is there, and I don't
really know why it is there....

Thanks,
NeilBrown