Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:44:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Andrey Simonenko <simon@comsys.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua> Cc: FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mountd, rpc.lockd and rpc.statd patches for testing Message-ID: <120749772.3115727.1334882677955.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <20120419125436.GA82169@pm513-1.comsys.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrey Simonenko wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 04:56:02PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have patches for the mountd, rpc.statd and rpc.lockd daemons > > that are meant to keep them from failing when a dynamically > > selected port# is not available for some combination of > > udp,tcp X ipv4,ipv6 > > > > If anyone would like to test these patches, they can be found > > at: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~rmacklem/mountd.patch > > statd.patch > > lockd.patch > > > > Although I think I got them correct, they are rather big and ugly. > > > > I have checked this update for mountd in 10-CURRENT and has two > questions: > > 1. What is the sense to try to use the same port number for all > supported netconfigs if specific port number is not given in > a command line option? > Well, there was a discussion of this on one of the mailing lists at the time. I started with a much simpler patch that didn't try and make all 4 <udp/tcp, ip4/ip6> combinations use the same port#, but others felt that was important. (Something about tracking what port# were in use, but I can't quite recall. If you want to know the reasoning, look for the thread that would have been shortly before the commit.) > 2. What is the sense of specifying specific IP addresses for mountd > and > similar RPC programs that do not have predefined port numbers? > I'm not sure what you are asking here? (Are you referring to the "-h" command line option?) > > One comment for netconfig related functions usage. Each setnetconfig() > call allocates memory and depending on implementation can use other > resources, so endnetconfig() should be called before reusing netconfig > handle. > _ Ok, I'll take a look someday. Since it happens a finite number of times, any leak should be bounded and, as such, shouldn't cause serious problems. However, I wasn't aware of the above and it should be fixed. rick > ------------------------------------------- > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?120749772.3115727.1334882677955.JavaMail.root>