From: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:35:01 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <18232.54549.271030.214405@notabene.brown>
Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nfsd bugfixes
In-Reply-To: message from J. Bruce Fields on Monday November 12
References: <1194901503-23105-1-git-send-email-bfields@citi.umich.edu>
	<18232.52970.213438.902011@notabene.brown>
	<20071112221349.GA2645@fieldses.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1286
Lines: 32


(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/