linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] autofs 5.1.2 release

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <876092krew.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date:   Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:29:59 +1100
From:   NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To:     Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>, autofs@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] autofs 5.1.2 release

Hi Ian,
 I've been looking at:

> - add configuration option to use fqdn in mounts.

(commit 9aeef772604) because using this new option causes a regression.
If you are using the "replicated server" functionality, then
  use_hostname_for_mounts = yes
completely disables it.

This is caused by:

diff --git a/modules/replicated.c b/modules/replicated.c
index 32860d5fe245..8437f5f3d5b2 100644
--- a/modules/replicated.c
+++ b/modules/replicated.c
@@ -667,6 +667,12 @@ int prune_host_list(unsigned logopt, struct host **list,
        if (!*list)
                return 0;

+       /* If we're using the host name then there's no point probing
+        * avialability and respose time.
+        */
+       if (defaults_use_hostname_for_mounts())
+               return 1;
+
        /* Use closest hosts to choose NFS version */

My question is: why what this particular change made.
Why can't prune_host_list() be allowed to do it's thing
when use_hostname_for_mounts is set.
I understand that it would be pointless choosing between
the different interfaces of a multi-homed host, but there is still value
in choosing between multiple distinct hosts.

What, if anything, might go wrong if I simply reverse this chunk of the
patch?

Thanks,
NeilBrown

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)