[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] SUNRPC: svc_register error overwritten in next iteration

On Mar 15, 2011, at 12:13 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:43:32AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 2011, at 6:36 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:27:35PM +0100, roel wrote:
>>>> The break is in the inner loop, the svc_register() error is overwritten
>>>> in the next iteration. Only the error in the last iteration is returned.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <>
>>>> ---
>>>> net/sunrpc/svc.c | 2 ++
>>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>> Is this needed?
>>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svc.c b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
>>>> index 08e05a8..5fd08c0 100644
>>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/svc.c
>>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svc.c
>>>> @@ -889,6 +889,8 @@ int svc_register(const struct svc_serv *serv, const int family,
>>>> if (error < 0)
>>>> break;
>>> May as well just "goto out" or "return error" here?
>>> But: aren't we missing some cleanup? If we succesfully register one
>>> program then fail at a second one, don't we need to unregister the
>>> first?
>> Right. I don't understand what is the intended effect here (of the original code): Best effort registration, or "all or none"?
> The current code was failing iff the last registration returns an error.
> We list the nfs program before the acl program in this list, so nfsd
> registration was failing iff the acl program failed, which makes no
> sense whatsoever.
> I think "all or none" would be cleanest.
> If people start complaining that they don't want to run rpcbind/portmap
> then we could give them some way of requesting that instead of just
> depending on allowing the registration to fail.

I thought vs_hidden was set for NFSACL... but maybe I was wrong about that.

> For cleanup, we can just unregister everything, right? (No harm in
> possibly unregistering something who's registration just failed?)

Yes. As a simple hard-headed approach, probably you should walk the passed-in sv_program list again and unregister each item in the list. The downside to this is if the upcall is taking a long time (for instance, if networking is not available). It would double the amount of time for svc_register() to return a failure.

However, be prepared: I bet such a change could expose bugs in the NFSD start up stack. :-( Maybe it deserves some soak-time in linux-next.

Chuck Lever

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-15 17:57    [W:0.069 / U:4.868 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site