From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93705C2BB55 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 774FB21927 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2410132AbgDPO2u (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:28:50 -0400 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:51266 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2410120AbgDPO2r (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:28:47 -0400 Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id 313741510; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 10:28:45 -0400 From: Bruce Fields To: Chuck Lever Cc: Jeff Layton , Linux NFS Mailing List Subject: Re: GSS unwrapping breaks the DRC Message-ID: <20200416142845.GA28206@fieldses.org> References: <20200415192542.GA6466@fieldses.org> <0775FBE7-C2DD-4ED6-955D-22B944F302E0@oracle.com> <20200415215823.GB6466@fieldses.org> <39815C35-EAD8-4B2E-B48F-88F3D5B10C57@oracle.com> <20200416000009.GA13083@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:07:27AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > The bigger picture is updating the server to use xdr_stream throughout > its XDR stack. That's the main reason I worked on the client-side GSS > wrap and unwrap functions last year. > > Using xdr_stream would move the server and client sides closer together > in style and implementation, then hopefully we could share more code. I'm all for that, though I'm not sure it's the same problem. The krb5i/krb5p implementation isn't based on xdr_stream on either the client or the server. But yes maybe it would force thinking about what the different xdr_buf fields mean in a way that would clarify things. I don't know. --b.