lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: nfsd bugfixes

(CC: trimmed - as Bruce says: separate discussion)

On Monday November 12, bfields@fieldses.org wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:08:42AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> > Calling nfsd_setuser an extra time does open us up for a very tiny
> > possibility of an ENOMEM at an awkward time.
>
> Hm. Could you give an example of possible consequences?

Just that you could get an ENOMEM in the middle of a NFSv4 COMPOUND.
I guess that should result in NFSERR_RESOURCE and we just hope the
client is able to cope and resend the remainder of the compound.
Though looking at the code, ENOMEM becomes nfserr_dropit... does that
mean the we would drop the whole request and the client would need to
resend, possibly duplicating non-idempotent portions?

Mainly, it just feels unclean.

>
> (Though note this is somewhat of a separate discussion, since this
> particular patch doesn't add a call to nfsd_setuser().)

Hmm, you are right, we already call nfsd_setuser in both paths, you we
just adding the check for privileged port - doh ;-)

NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-11-12 23:37    [W:0.055 / U:0.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site