On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 07:26:39PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > Hi Andy > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:33 PM, <andros@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Otherwise rpc.gssd will send a V4 NULL RPCSEC_GSS_INIT call with an RPCSEC_GSS > > service of rpc_gss_svc_none for rpc_sec_gss_svc_integrity/privacy requests > > from the kernel. > > I thought this behaviour of using rpc_gss_svc_none for the RPCSEC_GSS > negotiation in userland and then "stepping up" to a stricter service > in the kernel had been declared legal by the powers that be. Yes, in fact: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2203.txt 5.2.2: In a creation request, the seq_num and service fields are undefined and both must be ignored by the server. --b. -- 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
