https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=419913 Robert Vojcik changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bnc-team-screening@forge.provo.novell.com |locilka@novell.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=419913 User lnussel@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=419913#c4 Ludwig Nussel changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lnussel@novell.com Status|NEEDINFO |NEW Info Provider|lnussel@novell.com | --- Comment #4 from Ludwig Nussel 2008-09-29 01:46:53 MDT --- Yes, since the ports are assigned dynamically you of course need to re-run SuSEfirewall2 if the ports change. Just call SuSEfirewall2. I'm not sure whether the init scripts of those rpc service actually need to care or if it would be the duty of the admin. I also wonder why portmap doesn't try to stabilize port assignments a bit by reusing the previous port of a service. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=419913 User nfbrown@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=419913#c6 Neil Brown changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Info Provider| |lnussel@novell.com --- Comment #6 from Neil Brown 2008-10-09 01:17:49 MDT --- (In reply to comment #4 from Ludwig Nussel)

I also wonder why portmap doesn't try to stabilize port assignments a bit by reusing the previous port of a service.

There is a common misconception that portmap assigns port numbers. It does not. The RPC service provided chooses a port number and registers it with portmap. It has no way to find out what old port number might have been in use. I must admit that I don't much like the idea of having init.d/nfs restart the firewall. The code in init.d/network which does this looks rather fragile and I'd rather not duplicating and so increase the maintenance burden. If an admin is restarting nfs by hand, then restarting the firewall as well is a reasonable thing to expect I think. However if 'nfs' gets restarted as part of a software update, you would really like everything to 'just work'. Maybe restarting the firewall should be a standard 'last step' of a software installation, like running ldconfig. Another alternative would be to have e.g. /sbin/SuSEfirewall2 reload do all the checks that init.d/network currently does, and restarts the firewall if appropriate. Lugwig: What would you think of that last option? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=419913 User lnussel@novell.com added comment https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=419913#c8 Ludwig Nussel changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nfbrown@novell.com |lnussel@novell.com Severity|Normal |Enhancement Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|when nfs-client is installed, if new ports are |SuSEfirewall2: implement reload |used, susefirewall should be re-run (as | |appropriate) | --- Comment #8 from Ludwig Nussel 2008-10-09 02:14:46 MDT --- I'll accept this as feature request for post 11.1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.