Bug 764843 (GLUSTER-3111) - [FEAT] allow.auth only allows wild cards
Summary: [FEAT] allow.auth only allows wild cards
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: GLUSTER-3111
Product: GlusterFS
Classification: Community
Component: access-control
Version: mainline
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Kaushal
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-06-29 21:46 UTC by epoelke
Modified: 2015-10-22 15:46 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-10-22 15:46:38 UTC
Regression: ---
Mount Type: fuse
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description epoelke 2011-06-29 21:46:49 UTC
It seems that allow.auth should allow more than one 'network' and should control access by netmasks as oppose to a simple wild card.  Example is that I have a clients sitting on a /23 network and a simple wild card opens up the gluster volume to all kinds of systems that I don't want to have access.  Or if that is not possible at least a list of wild card based 'networks' should be able to be added.  Maybe this should be an enhancement and not a bug, I am not sure if I am going outside the original use case/requirement here..

Comment 1 Amar Tumballi 2012-02-27 10:43:18 UTC
priority will be re-addressed after 3.3.0 GA

Comment 2 Alastair Neil 2013-07-24 18:46:26 UTC
I was absolutely astounded when I discovered that the nfs.rpc-auth-allow parameter did not support netmasks.  It is incredible that this product can be used in all but the simplest of circumstances.  This is a essential feature please increase the priority to high.

Comment 3 Alastair Neil 2013-07-24 18:53:34 UTC
(In reply to Alastair Neil from comment #2)
> I was absolutely astounded when I discovered that the nfs.rpc-auth-allow
> parameter did not support netmasks.  It is incredible that this product can
> be used in all but the simplest of circumstances.  This is a essential
> feature please increase the priority to high.

Saw the note above that priority would be addressed after 3.3.0 GA - well 3.4.0 is now out.

Comment 4 Niels de Vos 2014-11-27 14:45:05 UTC
Feature requests make most sense against the 'mainline' release, there is no ETA for an implementation and requests might get forgotten when filed against a particular version.

Comment 5 Kaleb KEITHLEY 2015-10-22 15:46:38 UTC
because of the large number of bugs filed against mainline version\ is ambiguous and about to be removed as a choice.

If you believe this is still a bug, please change the status back to NEW and choose the appropriate, applicable version for it.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.