On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:53 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting J. Bruce Fields (bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx): > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 02:02:29PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > Quoting Matt Helsley (matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx): > > > > We can often specify the UTS namespace to use when starting an RPC client. > > > > However sometimes no UTS namespace is available (specifically during system > > > > shutdown as the last NFS mount in a container is unmounted) so fall > > > > back to the initial UTS namespace. > > > > > > So what happens if we take this patch and do nothing else? > > > > > > The only potential problem situation will be rpc requests > > > made on behalf of a container in which the last task has > > > exited, right? So let's say a container did an nfs mount > > > and then exits, causing an nfs umount request. > > > > > > That umount request will now be sent with the wrong nodename. > > > Does that actually cause problems, will the server use the > > > nodename to try and determine the client sending the request? > > > > This is just the machine name in the auth_unix credential? The linux > > server ignores that completely (for the purpose of auth_unix > > authenication, it identifies clients only by source ip address). I > > suspect other servers also ignore it, but I don't know. > > Thanks, that's what i was hoping... > > Matt, have you audited the other rpc-based services? Do any > of them care? Frankly, I did not audit any of the RPC-based services to see if any truly cared about the node name. That's actually a rather large scope when you consider it -- I'd have to look at much more than just "Linux" RPC clients. It seemed unsafe to assume _nobody_ would care after they bothered to put it into the spec. Hopefully I'm wrong though :). Cheers, -Matt -- 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
