From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:57505 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755035Ab1FJIUx (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:20:53 -0400 Message-ID: <4DF1D48D.10403@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:23:41 +0800 From: Mi Jinlong To: Steve Dickson CC: Jim Rees , Chuck Lever , NFS Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rpc.mountd: let mountd consult /etc/services for port References: <4DAD48C7.9090808@cn.fujitsu.com> <4DE0C380.7040608@cn.fujitsu.com> <20110528132953.GA8525@merit.edu> <20110528164502.GA9188@merit.edu> <4DEE873F.70607@RedHat.com> In-Reply-To: <4DEE873F.70607@RedHat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Steve Dickson: > On 05/28/2011 12:45 PM, Jim Rees wrote: >> Chuck Lever wrote: >> >> So, we could also address this by getting rid of the legacy RPC behavior >> instead. However, in cases like this, I typically choose to stick with >> legacy behavior, since that improves backwards compatibility. It already >> works like this for legacy RPC builds, so in some sense we are stuck with >> it. >> >> Ok. I remember the earlier discussion but forgot that the patch simply >> restores older behavior that was changed by tirpc. In that case I'll go >> along with Mi's patch. > I am all for restoring the older behavior, but unfortunately this patch > does not do it. > > I when back and took a look at how the nfs-utils-1.2.2 code worked. > While its true both mountd and statd read ports from /etc/service, > they did not fail when those ports were already taken. They just > bound to random ephemeral ports, which is probably the reason none of > us noticed they were reading ports out of /etc/services. With > Mi's patch, both daemons fail when the ports in /etc/service are > already taken. Hi steve, Do you mean the daemons can't run? I test nfs-utils-1.2.2 at fedora15, mountd can bind to the port reading form /etc/service. So, can you post some error or other message here? thanks, Mi Jinlong