Tom, Thanks for the help. I can deal with a workaround tell a fix is out. I will just put the client ip address in the hosts file tell it is fixed. Then I will be off and running.
--- Dru Devore > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [nfs-discuss] ZFS share without using hosts file > From: Tom Haynes <Thomas.Haynes at Sun.COM> > Date: Mon, May 04, 2009 12:11 pm > To: Dru Devore <ddevore at duckhouse.us> > Cc: nfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > > > Dru, > > Thanks for sticking with this - you are seeing behavior we all claim is > impossible to see. :-> > > I went looking in the code and sure enough it does do a reverse name > lookup. Only if that > lookup fails, it is supposed to use the hostname of "(anon)". Which, > combined with the > rules I provided, will allow your unamed machines access. > > I've spotted the place where the bug is occurring in > > > http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/fs.d/nfs/mountd/mountd.c#getclientsnames > > > 573 /* > 574 * Get the client's hostname from the transport handle > 575 * If the name is not available then return "(anon)". > 576 */ > 577 void > 578 getclientsnames(SVCXPRT *transp, struct netbuf **nbuf, > 579 struct nd_hostservlist **serv) > 580 { > ... > 600 /* > 601 * Use the this API instead of the netdir_getbyaddr() > 602 * to avoid service lookup. > 603 */ > 604 if (__netdir_getbyaddr_nosrv(nconf, serv, *nbuf)) { > ... > 629 } > 630 freenetconfigent(nconf); > 631 } > > > At line 631, we don't do what the comment on lines 574-575 state we > should do. > > I'll file a bug against this, but that doesn't help you right now. (If > you want to file the bug, > let me know.) > > For my home configuration, I assign my router the ip: > > 192.168.1.1 > > And I assign my server the IP of 192.168.1.20. > > I then use named or even dhcpd on that server to assign both names and IP to > the remaining computers in my house (most laptops, PSPs, Ninendo DSes, > iPhone, > etc use DHCP, the rest all get static IP). I configure all of my clients > to use the DNS > servers, in order: > > 192.168.1.20 > 192.168.1.1 > > > Would something like this suffice for you? I'm willing to help off-list > for you to get this going. > > Thanks, > Tom
