Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:33259 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964843AbaLMDpZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 22:45:25 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 22:45:19 -0500 To: Trond Myklebust Cc: William Andros Adamson , Linux NFS Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] SUNRPC add rpc_gss_svc_t to gssd upcall Message-ID: <20141213034518.GA28337@fieldses.org> References: <1418423580-1212-1-git-send-email-andros@netapp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: From: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 07:26:39PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > Hi Andy > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:33 PM, wrote: > > From: Andy Adamson > > > > Otherwise rpc.gssd will send a V4 NULL RPCSEC_GSS_INIT call with an RPCSEC_GSS > > service of rpc_gss_svc_none for rpc_sec_gss_svc_integrity/privacy requests > > from the kernel. > > I thought this behaviour of using rpc_gss_svc_none for the RPCSEC_GSS > negotiation in userland and then "stepping up" to a stricter service > in the kernel had been declared legal by the powers that be. Yes, in fact: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2203.txt 5.2.2: In a creation request, the seq_num and service fields are undefined and both must be ignored by the server. --b.