From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] IPv6 support for nfs-utils tcpwrapper shim Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:32:41 -0500 Message-ID: <4B50C2D9.3020305@RedHat.com> References: <20100115174426.30104.3492.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <4B50AE34.3020009@RedHat.com> <1FFE8210-7E78-4A65-A56F-A5030BB26600@oracle.com> <4B50B5F0.6020202@RedHat.com> <479E585D-C511-4B89-B2E4-A57E3EA2B7E8@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: chris.mason@oracle.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Chuck Lever Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54793 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758018Ab0AOTco (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:32:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <479E585D-C511-4B89-B2E4-A57E3EA2B7E8@oracle.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/15/2010 01:59 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Jan 15, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Steve Dickson wrote: >> On 01/15/2010 01:27 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> On Jan 15, 2010, at 1:04 PM, Steve Dickson wrote: >>>> On 01/15/2010 12:49 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: >>>>> These patches provide IPv6 support for the tcpwrapper shim inside >>>>> nfs-utils. It assumes that the generic tcpwrapper library can >>>>> support IPv6 addresses. It has not been extensively tested, but >>>>> I think the framework is reasonable, and only minor bug fixes might >>>>> be needed as we go along. >>>> Did you do any simple "hello world" testing? >>> >>> I've build-tested them. Jeff and I had them applied while doing the >>> statd testing. They don't appear to cause problems when no allow/deny >>> sets exist. >>> >>> I thought we would have more time to test and review these, so I haven't >>> done more extensive testing so far. In any case, I don't think they >>> will be harmful, and can serve as a place marker for that feature as the >>> beta moves forward. >> Unfortunately I have broken these before and it was awful painful... :-( >> Right or wrong... there is still a large number of people that depend >> on this archaic routines... we need to be very careful... > > Do you have tests I can run to validate these patches to your satisfaction? No... I wish I did... I just do the testing by hand... steved.