It was my understanding that the NFSv4 working group believed that the requirement for the NFSv4 client to use a priviledged port# (< 1024) should not exist. As such, I coded the server to ignore the vfs.nfsd.nfs_privport sysctl and allow the mount for NFSv4. PR#234106 has reported this as a compatibility issue w.r.t. the Linux NFS server. The change to make the FreeBSD NFSv4 server use vfs.nfsd.nfs_privport is trivial and I think being compatible with Linux is important (I see it as the defacto standard NFS implementation these days). However, I am concerned that this change will result in a slight POLA violation for sites with vfs.nfsd.nfs_privport set, but doing NFSv4 mounts that might now fail. What do others think I should do? rickReceived on Wed Dec 19 2018 - 00:06:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:19 UTC