From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48847 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753102Ab2D1Lrd (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:47:33 -0400 Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:47:26 +1000 From: NeilBrown To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix use_ipaddr race Message-ID: <20120428214726.1742c905@notabene.brown> In-Reply-To: <20120428112639.GA22396@fieldses.org> References: <1334961978-2843-1-git-send-email-bfields@redhat.com> <20120423110419.1311c364@notabene.brown> <20120428112639.GA22396@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/Hq6M1UDyw1utNLBm1gu+0Z0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --Sig_/Hq6M1UDyw1utNLBm1gu+0Z0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:26:39 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:04:19AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:46:15 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" > > wrote: > >=20 > > > mountd: unconditionally resolve ip address > >=20 > > Not a good idea. If /etc/exports only contains IP address and subnets,= then > > we don't ever want to do any address resolution. The "resolve ip addre= ss" > > must at least be conditional on "are there any domain-name, wild-cards, > > netgroups in /etc/exports". >=20 > The bug is my changelog. All we're really doing there is parsing the ip > address, not resolving anything. Ahhh. I see that now. Thanks. >=20 > ... > > > mountd: ignore use_ipaddr and just try both client types > >=20 > > Maybe ... though if we could syntactically distinguish "use_ipaddr" dom= ains > > from "!use_ipaddr" domain and still just choose one test to perform, I = think > > I'd prefer that. >=20 > Hm, OK. Something like the following? (Totally untested.) Yes, that looks good. I could probably bike-shed for a while about the leading '?', and wonder if '!' or '$' might be better choices, or if leading '[' and trailing ']' is best but I won't. He who writes the code makes the choice. Thanks, NeilBrown --Sig_/Hq6M1UDyw1utNLBm1gu+0Z0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBT5vYzjnsnt1WYoG5AQKjTRAAi3biAkMZjZgOC6pfEo9qAoOx7noYz+XG Wr2w0JYJ5k3W5izoHOr6X7015ITZ8ZlXzddBt3eCzQaT3p858Dhoxmmj2ZNRi0GB xvDO8OyCeNKW9ynH87/aJQsE8Qk4aWONaDFFyWSwSL8ULvXuexszCtcAqsHganPu tJgWnxNav6yZxG9BqUEtY51O6cN1Ml2bthY9VhhvU93k3TeUkepzSodbWfOZ+joC xXckny9gybgYuW/yLJ9Vv6cx8y901tfdIhS7pso/0wXEqvF4//bIygBTFSsPqFi0 g94WyTRjebYOXUhhAc0wW3EWWLESppF+is4XBhtkKHcWQge/L78D8noJCrgMftPX GDwiNgE6r7+2SaKhWvFBrWcwVmMAYVEO0GRAEJZYqe489pb/Mh8arjXzcmeSVP5h aEsRf4Lk5xRItpPLRJPFpG8+tiQlSN3Gm28n30ocr56SasVygjAK2dD4VmBHCVsf fF31LGm0yzSuslwjCSaborw3G8xdbffkO7HRBnpXxPZUK0ihN3ItZbU4GwHUh2W2 1IuPq2Htm4Q/v9+U7EAeKje8x89SDXfxYySXFYYUCCtSkp3a/LnfRRFAeHAEBjrP R7qCyfciXV0T0waYK+xbi97ymDgYC+5dgb1HsTAVBJPnN4HxqFj0d/6jR709mTMl 5JOhnyptDLU= =id3+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Hq6M1UDyw1utNLBm1gu+0Z0--