Hi,
one of my employers customers had a problem with a LAM (7.0.4) based
application throwing a "no-localhost" error on lamboot from an
apparently perfect bhosts configuration. After some confusion and
guessing we found that SuSE had put a line:
127.0.0.2 hostname.domain hostname
in /etc/hosts (IPV6 stuff ??). After removing it everything was OK
again. So far just a user error.
BUT: wouldn't it be better if lamboot would throw a
"resolve-localhost" instead? It would have definitely been more
meaningfull and helpfull, at least in my opinion.
Maybe "lam_ssi_boot_rsh_verify_nodes" should be modified to match any
127.0.0.X address for returning "resolve-localhost"? Maybe something
like:
--- ssi_boot_rsh.c-orig 2006-06-08 13:33:00.000000000 +0200
+++ ssi_boot_rsh.c 2006-06-08 13:40:56.000000000 +0200
@@ -357,12 +357,12 @@
/* If there is more than one node in the universe -- and we are not
using the -l option -- ensure that the origin node does not
- resolve to 127.0.0.1, or the remote nodes will NOT be sent info
+ resolve to 127.0.0.X, or the remote nodes will NOT be sent info
back to lamboot */
if (nnodes > 1 && !ao_taken(lam_ssi_boot_optd, "l")) {
- if (strcmp("127.0.0.1",
- inet_ntoa(nodes[origin].lnd_addr.sin_addr)) == 0) {
+ if (strcmp(inet_ntoa(nodes[origin].lnd_addr.sin_addr,
+ "127.0.0")) != NULL) {
show_help("boot-ssi", "resolve-localhost",
"The boot SSI rsh module", nodes[origin].lnd_hname);
return LAMERROR;
Just ignore me if I talk total nonsense.
Cheers
Martin
------------------------------------------------------
Martin Knoblauch
email: k n o b i AT knobisoft DOT de
www: http://www.knobisoft.de
|
