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>