On 03/08/2010 01:41 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:30:23PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >> On 03/08/2010 01:21 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> Occasionally we seem to hear from a security-conscious administrator >>> who's running v4-only and is irritated that they have to firewall off >>> mountd instead of just being able to kill it entirely. The latter might >>> reassure them, I suppose. >> >> I think Jeff had the idea of having mountd simply not set up its RPC >> listeners in that case. That looks easy to do. > > Sure, makes sense. > > But we might decide we want separate processes for servicing MOUNT > requests and export upcalls anyway. Yes... separating the upcalls from the network call would make things much more similar... IMHO... > > In which case, call one rpc.mountd, the other nfsd-cache-helper, don't > bother running "rpc.mountd" in the v4-only case, and, yay, we never have > to answer the "why do I still have to run rpc.mountd?" question again. Who says mountd has to be a longed lived daemon 100% of the time... It could used a start point for both the nfsv4listner process and the RPC listener (i.e. mountd itself). Then mountd could realize its a nfsv4-only environment and simply die (once the nfsv4lister is started). Just a thought... 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
