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 seem to remember enabling RESTRICTED_STATD cause problems with portmapper and kernel interactions which causes me to turn it off... So if we do permanently turn on the code, let make sure lock recover and such still work... steved. -- 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
