Bug 8839 - NFS server does not respect netgroup or DNS settings
Summary: NFS server does not respect netgroup or DNS settings
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 10332
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: nfs-utils
Version: 7.0
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael K. Johnson
QA Contact:
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2000-01-25 15:33 UTC by Joseph Kotran
Modified: 2008-05-01 15:37 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2001-11-11 16:42:40 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Joseph Kotran 2000-01-25 15:33:32 UTC
The man page for the file /etc/exports defines a method of restricting NFS
access based upon membership in a netgroup or based upon DNS names.  The
NFS server does not respect these restrictions.  For example if you
restrict a NFS share to your local DNS domain (*.redhat.com), no clients
will be able to mount the file share.  The client will get a permission
denied error.  In order to share file systems you must export them to the
world.  I have never been able to make NIS netgroup restrictions work.
However, DNS domain restrictions worked up to Red Hat 5.2.


Joe Kotran

Comment 1 Seth Vidal 2000-07-14 05:45:13 UTC
Can you make this reliably occur. I'm running rhat 6.2 on >20 nfs servers and I
don't see this problem on ANY of them.

Comment 2 Cristian Gafton 2000-08-09 02:34:43 UTC
assigned to johnsonm

Comment 3 Changed to DavidTangye@hotmail.com 2001-03-29 06:24:35 UTC
Refer my bug 33742 posted today. Maybe my permission denied is caused by the
same sort of thing: the way the exports file is coded.

Best regards,
David Tangye

-- Public email :  DavidTangye
-- Public website: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~dtangye
-- Quality Software Systems - Consulting and Development 
-- using Linux, Java, Oracle, Rational, Borland, & Corel

Comment 4 Aleksey Nogin 2001-11-11 16:42:35 UTC
This may be a duplicate of 10332

Comment 5 Michael K. Johnson 2002-01-18 18:01:07 UTC
I think you are right, this probably is a duplicate of 10332.
Well, more like 10332 is a duplicate of this, but it all comes
down to the same thing in the end...

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10332 ***

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