+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #430141 +++ rpc.mountd leaves confusing messages in the logs when a client not listed in to /etc/exports makes a mount request: mount request from unknown host foo.example.com for /export (/export) To a system administrator, "unknown host" means a name lookup failure from DNS/NIS/LDAP/local-files, which is not the case. Please change the message to something like mount request from unlisted host %s for %s (%s): not in /etc/exports Alternatively, please provide a more detailed explanation of what the message means in the rpc.mountd(8) man page. --- Additional comment from jlayton on 2008-01-25 07:31:28 EDT --- > Maybe "unknown" does NOT mean a DNS lookup failure, but rather, it means the > host was not listed in /etc/exports, therefore it's unknown. Correct. mountd has a list of hosts that it knows that it builds from /etc/exports. If the mount request doesn't match any of those hosts, then you'll get the "unknown host" message. If the host is "known", but tries to mount an export to which it doesn't have access, or if the directory just isn't exported, you'll get the no_entry or not_exported error messages. Granted, mountd's error messages are a bit cryptic. They probably could do with some cleanup. I'll have to think about what makes the most sense. We want to convey *why* the mount request failed in this error message, without confusing the user. I'm not sure that "unauthorized host" really conveys the fact that the ip addr doesn't match any host entries in the exports file. I'll need to ponder this a bit... --- Additional comment from jlayton on 2008-05-28 08:59:59 EDT --- ...maybe: mount request from unlisted host %s for %s (%s)
...or maybe "unmatched" host (since the host needn't be explicitly listed).
Created attachment 317964 [details] patch -- change message to read "unmatched host" Here's the patch I pushed upstream. Awaiting feedback.
Patch taken upstream. Going ahead and acking this for 5.4.
Committed in nfs-utils-1.0.9-41.el5
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1321.html