Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 29 Nov 2012 01:38:53 +0100
From:      Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
To:        Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
Cc:        svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r243645 - head/usr.sbin/nfsd
Message-ID:  <20121129003853.GB22327@dft-labs.eu>
In-Reply-To: <460700956.954956.1354148063432.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
References:  <20121128122034.GB17871@dft-labs.eu> <460700956.954956.1354148063432.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 07:14:23PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 02:47:32AM +0000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > Author: alfred
> > > Date: Wed Nov 28 02:47:31 2012
> > > New Revision: 243645
> > > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/243645
> > >
> > > Log:
> > >   Don't allow minthreads > maxthreads.
> > >
> > Should not this be also checked in the kernel? Looks like nfssvc_nfsd
> > is
> > trustful:
> > 
> Well, since only root can do this and I can't think of why a sysadmin
> would use anything other than nfsd, I'm not sure it matters much?
> (But I don't see a problem with adding a sanity check in the kernel code.)
> 

It's nothing serious and I'm not going to insist, especially since this
is your code. I just prefer the kernel to be resistant if it does not
cost much.

I had something like this in mind (untested):
http://people.freebsd.org/~mjg/patches/nfs-threads-check.diff

-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121129003853.GB22327>