Re: Limit on return string from program map

From: raven@themaw.net
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org, Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
Subject: Re: Limit on return string from program map
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 23:14:38 +0800 (WST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412202312480.8019@donald.themaw.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16838.59899.527170.54922@segfault.boston.redhat.com>

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Jeff Moyer wrote:

> ==> Regarding Re: [autofs] Limit on return string from program map; Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> adds:
>
> raven> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>>> ==> Regarding Re: [autofs] Limit on return string from program map; Jeff
>>> Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> adds:
>>>
>>> ==> Regarding Re: [autofs] Limit on return string from program map; Ian
>>> Kent <raven@themaw.net> adds:
> raven> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Keith Owens wrote:
>>>>>> Kernel 2.6.9, autofs v4 as a module, autofs-4.1.3-28 (FC3).  I added
>>>>>> "/net /etc/auto.net" to /etc/auto.master and it works fine, up to a
>>>>>> point.  ps shows
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /usr/sbin/automount --timeout=60 /net program /etc/auto.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the target server has a lot of mounted filesystems then automount
>>>>>> will only mount the first few entries on the list.  Then it tries to
>>>>>> run mount with invalid input.  It looks like there is a hard coded
>>>>>> limit on the string that automount expects from a program map.  My
>>>>>> virtual CD server has lots of CD images mounted over loopback, each
>>>>>> with its own export entry, so the return string from auto.net is
>>> quite >>> long.
>>>
> raven> The buffer size for map entries is 4096.
>>>
> jmoyer> I think I posted a patch here that would extend that?  I can't seem
> jmoyer> to find it in the archives, so I'll repost.  This is the version of
> jmoyer> the patch that is in our tree, so no guarantees about it applying
> jmoyer> to Ian's tree.  *sigh* (patch originally done by from Neil Horman)
>>>
> jmoyer> Ian, when is 4.1.4 coming out.  ;-)
>>> Bah, and it was just pointed out to me that this patch adds a bug.  I'll
>>> repost the patch when the bug is fixed.  (see red hat bz #138994).
>>>
>>> No ETA just yet.
>
> raven> OK.
>
> raven> I think I've already merge the above patch.  I'll look forward to
> raven> the fix.
>
> New patch attached.  Let me know if you need an incremental.  This is as of
> yet untested.

Incremental would probably be better if it's not to much trouble.

There will have to be quite a bit of testing when I'm finished patching. I 
expect it won't even compile first off.

Ian