On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:21:37PM +0100, bstroesser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hello, > > I'm sending a small set of 3 patches for a problem, that I have > reported a few weeks ago. > rpc.mountd can be blocked by a bad client, that sends lots of > RPC requests, but never reads the replies from the socket either > intentionally or e.g. caused by a wrong configured MTU. > > While looking for a possible solution, I found another weakness > in rpc.mountd if it is used "multithreaded" (-t nn). > > The first two patches fix that weakness in the case of !HAVE_LIBTIRPC > and HAVE_LIBTIRPC. They look fine to me. > The third patch more a kind of suggestion how the main problem could > be fixed. Sounds reasonable to me. > I don't know whether we can set MAXREC without causing > new troubles. When this patch is used, a further patch for libtirpc > also should be used. You can find it here: > http://sourceforge.net/p/libtirpc/mailman/libtirpc-devel/?viewmonth=201409 So applying this last patch and then building against an unpatched libtirpc would expose us to a serious bug? Do we need to do something to make that less likely to happen? --b. > > Best regards, > Bodo -- 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
