Eric W. Biederman wrote: > 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. the task exiting brings down the lockd thread and unregisters the lockd service with the portmapper. This is done with a rpc call which creates a client and a request. that's how I understand the code and the oops. C. -- 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
