(CC: trimmed - as Bruce says: separate discussion)
On Monday November 12, [email protected] 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
