From c4ad3f73033c7e0511c3e7df961e1232cc503478 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:32:06 +0100 Subject: IRC. --- open_issues/ti-rpc_then_nfs.mdwn | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'open_issues/ti-rpc_then_nfs.mdwn') diff --git a/open_issues/ti-rpc_then_nfs.mdwn b/open_issues/ti-rpc_then_nfs.mdwn index aa36e020..c3dd4e26 100644 --- a/open_issues/ti-rpc_then_nfs.mdwn +++ b/open_issues/ti-rpc_then_nfs.mdwn @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] +[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011, 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] [[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this @@ -18,3 +18,88 @@ It needs some work on our side, [[!message-id Then, the Hurd's [[hurd/translator/nfs]] translator and [[hurd/nfsd]] can be re-enabled, [[!message-id "87hb2j7ha7.fsf@gnu.org"]]. + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-19 + + hi. I'm trying to port libtirpc to get rcpbind on hurd, and am + unable to find IPV6_PORTRANGE and IPV6_PORTRANGE_LOW. is this a known + problem with a known fix? + what are they supposed to be ? + braunr: found them described in . + "The IPV6_PORTRANGE socket option and the conflict resolution rule + are not defined in the RFCs and should be considered implementation + dependent + " + hm + if we have that, they're very probably not accessible from outside + our network stack + needed feature on hurd, in other words... + why ? + If I remember correctly, SO_PEERCRED is also missing? + yes .. + that one is important + braunr: you wonder why the IPV6_PORTRANGE socket option was created? + i wonder why it's needed + does linux have it ? + yes, linux got it. + same name ? + it make it possible for some services to work with some + firewalls. :) + yes, same name, as far I can tell. + they could merely bind ports explicitely, couldn't they ? + not always. + or is it for servers on creation of a client socket ? + see + for an example I came across. + i don't find these macros on linux :/ + how strange. libtirpc build on linux. + is there a gitweb or so somewhere ? + i can't find it on sf :/ + for , you mean? + yes + no idea. + are you looking at upstream 0.2.4 or a particular debian package ? + I'm looking at the debian package. + let me take a look + http://paste.debian.net/82971/ is my first draft patch to get the + source building. + ok so + in src/bindresvport.c + if you look carefully, you'll see that these _PORTRANGE macros are + used in non linux code + not very portable but it explains why you hit the problem + try using #if defined (__linux__) || defined(__GNU__) + also, i think we intend to implement SCM_CREDS, not SO_PEERCRED + but consider we have neither for now + ah, definitely a simpler fix. + pere: btw, see + https://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2010/12/msg00014.html + + with patch reporte.d + + +## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-20 + + new libtirpc with hurd fixes just uploaded to debian. should fix + the rpcbind build too. + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-20 + + hm, rpcbind built with freshly patched libtirpc fail to work on + hurd. no idea why. + running 'rpcinfo -p' show 'rpcinfo: can't contact portmapper: RPC: + Success' + o_O + I have no idea how to debug it. :( + anyway, I've found that rpcinfo is the broken part. rpcbind work, + when I test it from a remote machine. + + +## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-21 + + failing rpcinfo -p on hurd reported as . Anyone got a clue how to debug it? -- cgit v1.2.3