On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 19:25:59 -0400 Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 18:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:30:18 -0400 > > Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Steven, how about something like the following patch? > > > > > > > OK, the box I'm running this on is using v4.0.5, can you make a patch > > based on that, as whatever you make needs to go to stable as well. > > Is it causing any other damage than the rkhunter warning you reported? Well, not that I know of. Are you sure that this port will be reconnected, and is not just a leak. Not sure if you could waste more ports this way with connections to other machines. I only have my wife's box connect to this server. This server is actually a client to my other boxes. Although the rkhunter warning is the only thing that triggers, I still would think this is a stable fix, especially if the port is leaked and not taken again. > > Sorry. I sent that one off too quickly. Try the following. This built, will be testing it shortly. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
