Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] sunrpc: Use utsnamespaces

[Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:53 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting J. Bruce Fields (bfields@fieldses.org):
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 02:02:29PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Quoting Matt Helsley (matthltc@us.ibm.com):
> > > > We can often specify the UTS namespace to use when starting an RPC client.
> > > > However sometimes no UTS namespace is available (specifically during system
> > > > shutdown as the last NFS mount in a container is unmounted) so fall
> > > > back to the initial UTS namespace.
> > > 
> > > So what happens if we take this patch and do nothing else?
> > > 
> > > The only potential problem situation will be rpc requests
> > > made on behalf of a container in which the last task has
> > > exited, right?  So let's say a container did an nfs mount
> > > and then exits, causing an nfs umount request.
> > > 
> > > That umount request will now be sent with the wrong nodename.
> > > Does that actually cause problems, will the server use the
> > > nodename to try and determine the client sending the request?
> > 
> > This is just the machine name in the auth_unix credential?  The linux
> > server ignores that completely (for the purpose of auth_unix
> > authenication, it identifies clients only by source ip address).  I
> > suspect other servers also ignore it, but I don't know.
> 
> Thanks, that's what i was hoping...
> 
> Matt, have you audited the other rpc-based services?  Do any
> of them care?

Frankly, I did not audit any of the RPC-based services to see if any
truly cared about the node name. That's actually a rather large scope
when you consider it -- I'd have to look at much more than just "Linux"
RPC clients. It seemed unsafe to assume _nobody_ would care after they
bothered to put it into the spec.

Hopefully I'm wrong though :).

Cheers,
	-Matt