Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > If the upper layers are responsible for providing the utsname, you will need to > fix up lockd and the NFS server's callback client too, at least. Actually looking at the code. It looks like a proper fix may be even simpler. Why do we have both clnt->cl_server and clnt->cl_nodename? Or is cl_server the other side of the connection? >>> What are we trying to achieve by reading utsname? >> >> It looks like it gets copied into the sunrpc messages so I assume it is >> a part of the sunrpc spec? > > It appears to be used only for RPC's AUTH_SYS credentials. The nodename is used > to identify the caller's host. See RFC 1831, Appendix A: > > http://rfclibrary.hosting.com/rfc/rfc1831/rfc1831-16.asp Thanks that helps a lot. > I'm not terribly familiar with uts namespaces, though. Can someone explain why > we need to distinguish between these for AUTH_SYS if the caller is on a remote > system? Semantically processes in different uts namespaces are on different machines. > I don't like the idea of an oops in here. Instead, (for now) it should warn and > fail to create the client, IMO. Which is interesting when the problem happens during NFS unmount. Although frankly it could fail anyway. It seems strange that we are creating a client during unmount anyway. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
