[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: NFS -- Hurd

Roland McGrath <roland@gnu.org> writes:

> Ah, I see.  That is indeed true, because it takes over the portmap socket
> and then doesn't implement the actual protocol, preventing any other sunrpc
> services from being used in the normal ways.  This will have to be
> changed.

Yes indeed.

> It is fine that nfsd uses dedicated canonical port numbers for the nfs and
> nfsmount sunrpc protocols.  I suppose it's also vaguely reasonable that it
> provide a minimal portmap server when there isn't one on the system.

NFS is special; it's required to use a dedicated canonical port
number, unlike other portmap services.  

> But it is not reasonable to take over the portmap port and then not
> be a real portmap server, so that no other sunrpc services can be
> used on the system.  nfsd should act as a client of the portmap
> daemon (and an existing unixoid portmap daemon will do fine).

Yes, I agree.

Reply to: