Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:48904 "EHLO mail-wg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423489Ab2KNW0a (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:26:30 -0500 Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id dr13so465334wgb.1 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:26:06 +0100 (CET) From: Eldad Zack To: "J. Bruce Fields" cc: Sven Geggus , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Kernel update 3.5.7 -> 3.6.3 breaks NFS4 In-Reply-To: <20121114160712.GG23604@fieldses.org> Message-ID: References: <20121109200730.GI6171@fieldses.org> <20121109232410.GK6171@fieldses.org> <20121112091717.GA1610@geggus.net> <20121113224005.GA11545@fieldses.org> <20121114005815.GA23604@fieldses.org> <20121114160712.GG23604@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 07:58:15PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 05:40:05PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:17:17AM +0100, Sven Geggus wrote: > > > > J. Bruce Fields schrieb am Samstag, den 10. November um 00:24 Uhr: > > > > > > > > 4294967295 is UINT_MAX and this place is where it behaves differently on a good > > > > kernel where the write call will succeed: > > > > > > > > write(4, "4294967295 1352710828 0 \n", 25) = 25 > > > > > > > > Sven > > > > > > > > P.S.: Your patched svcauth_gss.c will give me an "access denied by server" > > > > while mounting instead of the infinite delay: > > > > ~/ # mount -t nfs4 -o sec=krb5 testsrv:/storage /mnt/ > > > > mount.nfs4: access denied by server while mounting testsrv:/storage > > > > > > So, looks like the same get_int problem exists in several other places. > > > Could you try the following instead of the previous patch? I think I > > > got them all this time.... > > > > Oh, cripes, but this isn't good enough--svcgssd actually passes down -1 > > id's. Ugh--I'll take a closer look tomorrow. > > Yeah, for backwards compatibility reasons we probably don't want to > reject either -1 or 4294967295. > > So I'm inclined to revert unless Eldad has a better idea. I support that - please revert. I don't know my way around the code enough to suggest a good solution at this point. Cheers, Eldad