+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #2359515 +++

Description of problem: Request ganesha support to support a config option to specify a specific address for monitoring binding. Currently it defaults to INADDR_ANY which prevent to reuse of the same monitoring port across multiple nfs clusters https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha/blob/V6-stable/src/monitoring/exposer.cc#L200


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 8.0z3


How reproducible: Attempt to provision multiple ganesha clusters with the same monitoring port.


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Provision ganesha with monitoring port 9837
2. Provision another ganesha with the same monitoring port 9837
3.

Actual results:
The second ganesha cluster fails to start


Expected results:
Allow an option to specify a bind address for the monitoring service so the same port under unique addresses can bind successfully


Additional info:

--- Additional comment from Storage PM bot on 2025-04-14 14:13:28 UTC ---

Please specify the severity of this bug. Severity is defined here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_severity.

--- Additional comment from Sachin Punadikar on 2025-04-22 10:29:20 UTC ---

Made required changes, here is PR for downstream 
https://gitlab.cee.redhat.com/ceph/nfs-ganesha/-/commit/a293a0b3f4fa5e58753bae3ae75db220fb3f20e9

Upstream code is different in file & function names. Related upstream PR - https://review.gerrithub.io/c/ffilz/nfs-ganesha/+/1213832

@Thomas, please find the downstream PR in below branch 
https://gitlab.cee.redhat.com/ceph/nfs-ganesha/-/tree/private-tserlin-ceph-8.0-rhel-9-hotfix-bz2357486-patches?ref_type=heads

--- Additional comment from Sachin Punadikar on 2025-04-22 10:36:43 UTC ---

Initially there was discussion on cephadm related changes.
The main issue is how to mention the IP address for listening monitoring port.
cephadm can not pick IP address on its own. Someone need to provide the IP address for config parameter "Monitoring_Addr".
Hence cephadm changes are on hold. Need clarification from IBM Cloud team.