Hide Forgot
We need to figure out a solution here fairly soon, since time is limited to make changes in 6.9. Is this really a regression? Steve D / Ian what is the lowest risk option that is open to us?
(In reply to Steve Whitehouse from comment #13) > We need to figure out a solution here fairly soon, since time is limited to > make changes in 6.9. Is this really a regression? > > Steve D / Ian what is the lowest risk option that is open to us? I think mount.nfs(8) needs work but I also can't leave autofs open to this. I should be able to add RPC ping check for this special case alone without much effort and since the mount ultimately fails it shouldn't introduce a regression. I'll do that.
Steve hasn't devel_acked this so I guess it will be ok for me to take this for autofs, we can always change it back if need be.
Created attachment 1238963 [details] Patch - fix inconsistent signed usage for __rpc_ping() Missing autofs-5.0.7 patch for rpc_ping.
Created attachment 1238964 [details] Patch - check NFS server availability on local mount fallback
Moving to VERIFIED according to test logs of Comment #30.
Updating the bug description according to Comment #12 and Comment #14. Thanks Ian for the explanation.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017-0780.html