On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 13:35 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > > On 09/04/13 13:25, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 13:15 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> > >> On 08/04/13 10:08, Simo Sorce wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 09:39 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 02/04/13 15:32, Simo Sorce wrote: > >>>>> A NFS client should be able to work properly even if the DNS Reverse record > >>>>> for the server is not set. There is no excuse to forcefully prevent that > >>>>> from working when it can. > >>>>> > >>>>> This patch adds a new pair of options (-z/-Z) that allow to turn on/off > >>>>> DNS reverse resolution for determining the server name to use with GSSAPI. > >>>> Again, please tell me why we need the -Z flag when that is the default? > >>> > >>> The idea is to switch the default in the code at some point, so then -Z > >>> will be needed to get back to the original behavior. > >> I'm thinking that's what major version number changes are for... not flags... > >> > >>> > >>> The idea is that by having both flags a distribution may choose to > >>> decide now what behavior they want and use the relative flag. Then even > >>> if we change the default their configuration will not "break". > >> I'll do the work to remove the option and repost the patches.. > > > > As you wish, I do not have hard preferences, should we take the bait and > > also by default *not* do PTR lookups ? > I was thinking no. Leaves the default as is and used the -z to avoid the > lookup... > > I'm struggling with how big of a problem this really is, so why should be break > existing environments? I'm no DNS expert but I thinking not have PTR is > a DNS config issue... but again I'm no expert... Read this: http://ssimo.org/blog/id_015.html Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- 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
