[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:0.033 / U:40.136 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site