Re: Public NFSv4 handle?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 at 21:59, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 21:28 +0100, Dan Shelton wrote:
> > [You don't often get email from dan.f.shelton@xxxxxxxxx. Learn why
> > this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 at 16:32, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 21:37 -0500, Tom Talpey wrote:
> > > > On 2/8/2024 7:19 PM, Dan Shelton wrote:
> > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 at 02:48, Dan Shelton
> > > > > <dan.f.shelton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do the Linux NFSv4 server and client support the NFS public
> > > > > > handle?
> > > >
> > > > Are you referring the the old WebNFS stuff? That was a v2/v3
> > > > thing,
> > > > and, I believe, only ever supported by Solaris.
> > > >
> > >
> > > One more try! I think my MUA was having issues this morning.
> > >
> > > NFSv4.1 supports the PUTPUBFH op:
> > >
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8881.html#name-operation-23-putpubfh-set-p
> > >
> > > ...but this op is only for backward compatibility. The Linux server
> > > returns the rootfh (as it SHOULD).
> >
> > No, I do not consider this "backward compatibility". The "public"
> > option is also intended for public servers, like package mirrors
> > (e.g.
> > Debian), to have a better solution than http or ftp.
> >
>
> PUTPUBFH offers no extra security features over PUTROOTFH. It is
> literally just a way to offer a second point of entry into the same
> exported filesystem.

Right. It doesn't expose your "private" filesystem hierarchy.

>
> A more modern approach would be to create 2 containers on the same
> host: one that shares the full namespace to be exported, and one that
> shares only the bits of the namespace that are considered "public".
> That approach requires no extra patches or customisation to existing
> kernels.

Oh for god's sake. Please don't call "containers" a "modern approach".
It's just a sad waste of resources, aside from the other shitload of
problems they cause.
Also in real life, we frog-eating backwards savages here in Europe do
not have so many public IPv4 addresses available to put everything
into containers, and changing everything to IPv6-only networks will
take another 2 or 3 decades here.

Ced
-- 
Cedric Blancher <cedric.blancher@xxxxxxxxx>
[https://plus.google.com/u/0/+CedricBlancher/]
Institute Pasteur




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux