Re: general protection fault in encode_rpcb_string

[Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 12:34:48PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 8, 2018, at 12:15 PM, bfields@fieldses.org wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:54:36PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >> Yes, and we can probably convert it, and the other GFP_ATOMIC
> >> allocations in the rpcbind client to use GFP_NOFS in order to improve
> >> reliability.
> > 
> > Chuck, I think the GFP_ATOMIC is unnecessary here as well?
> > 
> > --b.
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c
> > index e8adad33d0bb..de90c6c90cde 100644
> > --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c
> > +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c
> > @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ rpcrdma_convert_iovs(struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt, struct xdr_buf *xdrbuf,
> > 			/* XXX: Certain upper layer operations do
> > 			 *	not provide receive buffer pages.
> > 			 */
> > -			*ppages = alloc_page(GFP_ATOMIC);
> > +			*ppages = alloc_page(GFP_NOFS);
> > 			if (!*ppages)
> > 				return -EAGAIN;
> > 		}
> 
> This code can't sleep, as I understand it. Caller is holding
> the transport write lock. This logic was copied from
> xdr_partial_copy_from_skb, which uses GFP_ATOMIC.

OK.

> Recall that this is here because of GETACL. As I've stated in
> the past, the correct solution is to ensure that these pages
> are provided in every case by the upper layer, making this
> alloc_page call site unnecessary.

Got it.

--b.