Re: NFS -- Hurd
Roland McGrath <firstname.lastname@example.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
> 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.