On Wed, August 27, 2008 6:41 am, Chuck Lever wrote: > Hi guys- > > I was wondering if anyone ever builds nfs-utils with RESTRICTED_STATD > undefined these days. It seems totally insecure to do. Is it still > necessary to keep this? > > It would be easier to understand, update, and test the logic in utils/ > statd/monitor.c (IPv6-wise) if we could remove the unused parts of > this code. > > I propose removing RESTRICTED_STATD, leaving in the secure version of > the code permanently and removing the insecure parts that are left out > when RESTRICTED_STATD is undefined. > > Thoughts? I fully agree and support the idea! NeilBrown -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
