On 19/11/2019 22:42, Florian Haas wrote: > On 19/11/2019 22:34, Jason Dillaman wrote: >>> Oh totally, I wasn't arguing it was a bad idea for it to do what it >>> does! I just got confused by the fact that our mon logs showed what >>> looked like a (failed) attempt to blacklist an entire client IP address. >> >> There should have been an associated client nonce after the IP address >> to uniquely identify which client connection is blacklisted -- >> something like "1.2.3.4:0/5678". Let me know if that's not the case >> since that would definitely be wrong. > > English lacks a universally understood way to answer a negated question > in the affirmative, so this is tricky to get right, but I'll try: No, > that *is* the case, thus nothing is wrong. :) Doc patch PR is here, for anyone who would feels inclined to review: https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/31893 Cheers, Florian _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |