* [PATCH] NFS: Check if rpcauth_create() returns an error code @ 2012-06-26 18:12 bjschuma 2012-06-26 18:23 ` Chuck Lever 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: bjschuma @ 2012-06-26 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Trond.Myklebust; +Cc: linux-nfs, chuck.lever From: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com> I was treating a NULL return value as an error, but this function will instead return an ERR_PTR(). Now that I'm checking if the function returns an error, I should also pass the error up the call stack. Signed-off-by: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com> --- fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c | 4 ++-- fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 15 ++++----------- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c index 017b4b0..a8aafc6 100644 --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c @@ -205,9 +205,9 @@ struct rpc_clnt *nfs4_create_sec_client(struct rpc_clnt *clnt, struct inode *ino return clone; auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, clone); - if (!auth) { + if (IS_ERR(auth)) { rpc_shutdown_client(clone); - clone = ERR_PTR(-EIO); + clone = ERR_CAST(auth); } return clone; diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c index 5a7b372..f817587 100644 --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c @@ -2356,17 +2356,10 @@ out: static int nfs4_lookup_root_sec(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle, struct nfs_fsinfo *info, rpc_authflavor_t flavor) { - struct rpc_auth *auth; - int ret; - - auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, server->client); - if (!auth) { - ret = -EIO; - goto out; - } - ret = nfs4_lookup_root(server, fhandle, info); -out: - return ret; + struct rpc_auth *auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, server->client); + if (IS_ERR(auth)) + return PTR_ERR(auth); + return nfs4_lookup_root(server, fhandle, info); } static int nfs4_find_root_sec(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle, -- 1.7.11.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NFS: Check if rpcauth_create() returns an error code 2012-06-26 18:12 [PATCH] NFS: Check if rpcauth_create() returns an error code bjschuma @ 2012-06-26 18:23 ` Chuck Lever 2012-06-26 19:00 ` Bryan Schumaker 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Chuck Lever @ 2012-06-26 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryan Schumaker, Trond Myklebust; +Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:12 PM, bjschuma@netapp.com wrote: > From: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com> > > I was treating a NULL return value as an error, but this function will > instead return an ERR_PTR(). Now that I'm checking if the function > returns an error, I should also pass the error up the call stack. > Signed-off-by: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com> > --- > fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c | 4 ++-- > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 15 ++++----------- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c > index 017b4b0..a8aafc6 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c > @@ -205,9 +205,9 @@ struct rpc_clnt *nfs4_create_sec_client(struct rpc_clnt *clnt, struct inode *ino > return clone; > > auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, clone); > - if (!auth) { > + if (IS_ERR(auth)) { > rpc_shutdown_client(clone); > - clone = ERR_PTR(-EIO); > + clone = ERR_CAST(auth); > } This echoes nfs_init_server_rpcclient(), so it should be adequate. > > return clone; > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > index 5a7b372..f817587 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > @@ -2356,17 +2356,10 @@ out: > static int nfs4_lookup_root_sec(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle, > struct nfs_fsinfo *info, rpc_authflavor_t flavor) > { > - struct rpc_auth *auth; > - int ret; > - > - auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, server->client); > - if (!auth) { > - ret = -EIO; > - goto out; > - } > - ret = nfs4_lookup_root(server, fhandle, info); > -out: > - return ret; > + struct rpc_auth *auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, server->client); > + if (IS_ERR(auth)) > + return PTR_ERR(auth); > + return nfs4_lookup_root(server, fhandle, info); > } > > static int nfs4_find_root_sec(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle, This logic calls rpcauth_create() in a loop, correct? The expectation is that rpcauth_create() should simply replace the nfs_client's rpc_auth with the next flavor each time it is called? With the current code in nfs4_find_root_sec(), rpcauth_create() with a GSS flavor fails the second time you call it because (I suspect) there's a pipe dentry left over from the previous call. So there's no way to walk an entire list returned from gss_mech_list_flavors(), it will fail on the second GSS flavor every time. We could: a) have gss_pipes_dentries_create_net() ignore -EEXIST and return zero instead, or b) make sure rpcauth_create() releases the old rpc_auth before calling op->create() c) ?? -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NFS: Check if rpcauth_create() returns an error code 2012-06-26 18:23 ` Chuck Lever @ 2012-06-26 19:00 ` Bryan Schumaker 2012-06-26 19:11 ` Chuck Lever 2012-06-26 21:34 ` Chuck Lever 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Bryan Schumaker @ 2012-06-26 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chuck Lever; +Cc: Trond Myklebust, Linux NFS Mailing List On 06/26/2012 02:23 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:12 PM, bjschuma@netapp.com wrote: > >> From: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com> >> >> I was treating a NULL return value as an error, but this function will >> instead return an ERR_PTR(). Now that I'm checking if the function >> returns an error, I should also pass the error up the call stack. > > >> Signed-off-by: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com> >> --- >> fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c | 4 ++-- >> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 15 ++++----------- >> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c >> index 017b4b0..a8aafc6 100644 >> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c >> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c >> @@ -205,9 +205,9 @@ struct rpc_clnt *nfs4_create_sec_client(struct rpc_clnt *clnt, struct inode *ino >> return clone; >> >> auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, clone); >> - if (!auth) { >> + if (IS_ERR(auth)) { >> rpc_shutdown_client(clone); >> - clone = ERR_PTR(-EIO); >> + clone = ERR_CAST(auth); >> } > > This echoes nfs_init_server_rpcclient(), so it should be adequate. > >> >> return clone; >> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >> index 5a7b372..f817587 100644 >> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >> @@ -2356,17 +2356,10 @@ out: >> static int nfs4_lookup_root_sec(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle, >> struct nfs_fsinfo *info, rpc_authflavor_t flavor) >> { >> - struct rpc_auth *auth; >> - int ret; >> - >> - auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, server->client); >> - if (!auth) { >> - ret = -EIO; >> - goto out; >> - } >> - ret = nfs4_lookup_root(server, fhandle, info); >> -out: >> - return ret; >> + struct rpc_auth *auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, server->client); >> + if (IS_ERR(auth)) >> + return PTR_ERR(auth); >> + return nfs4_lookup_root(server, fhandle, info); >> } >> >> static int nfs4_find_root_sec(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle, > > This logic calls rpcauth_create() in a loop, correct? The expectation is that rpcauth_create() should simply replace the nfs_client's rpc_auth with the next flavor each time it is called? > Yeah, that's what I'm expecting to happen. > With the current code in nfs4_find_root_sec(), rpcauth_create() with a GSS flavor fails the second time you call it because (I suspect) there's a pipe dentry left over from the previous call. So there's no way to walk an entire list returned from gss_mech_list_flavors(), it will fail on the second GSS flavor every time. rpcauth_create() has this bit of code in it: if (clnt->cl_auth) rpcauth_release(clnt->cl_auth); clnt->cl_auth = auth; I guess I figured rpcauth_release() was already doing the necessary cleanup. - Bryan > > We could: > > a) have gss_pipes_dentries_create_net() ignore -EEXIST and return zero instead, or > > b) make sure rpcauth_create() releases the old rpc_auth before calling op->create() > > c) ?? > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NFS: Check if rpcauth_create() returns an error code 2012-06-26 19:00 ` Bryan Schumaker @ 2012-06-26 19:11 ` Chuck Lever 2012-06-26 21:34 ` Chuck Lever 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Chuck Lever @ 2012-06-26 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryan Schumaker; +Cc: Trond Myklebust, Linux NFS Mailing List On Jun 26, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Bryan Schumaker wrote: > On 06/26/2012 02:23 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: >> >> On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:12 PM, bjschuma@netapp.com wrote: >> >>> From: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com> >>> >>> I was treating a NULL return value as an error, but this function will >>> instead return an ERR_PTR(). Now that I'm checking if the function >>> returns an error, I should also pass the error up the call stack. >> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com> >>> --- >>> fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c | 4 ++-- >>> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 15 ++++----------- >>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c >>> index 017b4b0..a8aafc6 100644 >>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c >>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c >>> @@ -205,9 +205,9 @@ struct rpc_clnt *nfs4_create_sec_client(struct rpc_clnt *clnt, struct inode *ino >>> return clone; >>> >>> auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, clone); >>> - if (!auth) { >>> + if (IS_ERR(auth)) { >>> rpc_shutdown_client(clone); >>> - clone = ERR_PTR(-EIO); >>> + clone = ERR_CAST(auth); >>> } >> >> This echoes nfs_init_server_rpcclient(), so it should be adequate. >> >>> >>> return clone; >>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >>> index 5a7b372..f817587 100644 >>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >>> @@ -2356,17 +2356,10 @@ out: >>> static int nfs4_lookup_root_sec(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle, >>> struct nfs_fsinfo *info, rpc_authflavor_t flavor) >>> { >>> - struct rpc_auth *auth; >>> - int ret; >>> - >>> - auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, server->client); >>> - if (!auth) { >>> - ret = -EIO; >>> - goto out; >>> - } >>> - ret = nfs4_lookup_root(server, fhandle, info); >>> -out: >>> - return ret; >>> + struct rpc_auth *auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, server->client); >>> + if (IS_ERR(auth)) >>> + return PTR_ERR(auth); >>> + return nfs4_lookup_root(server, fhandle, info); >>> } >>> >>> static int nfs4_find_root_sec(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle, >> >> This logic calls rpcauth_create() in a loop, correct? The expectation is that rpcauth_create() should simply replace the nfs_client's rpc_auth with the next flavor each time it is called? >> > > Yeah, that's what I'm expecting to happen. > >> With the current code in nfs4_find_root_sec(), rpcauth_create() with a GSS flavor fails the second time you call it because (I suspect) there's a pipe dentry left over from the previous call. So there's no way to walk an entire list returned from gss_mech_list_flavors(), it will fail on the second GSS flavor every time. > > rpcauth_create() has this bit of code in it: > > if (clnt->cl_auth) > rpcauth_release(clnt->cl_auth); > clnt->cl_auth = auth; > > > I guess I figured rpcauth_release() was already doing the necessary cleanup. It's doing clean-up _after_ the op->create() call. That way if op->create() fails, clnt->cl_auth is unchanged, as rpcauth_create()'s caller expects. But that means that any pipes created for clnt->cl_auth are still around while op->create() is working, and will cause rpc_mkpipe() to barf. I'm toying with these solutions: >> We could: >> >> a) have gss_pipes_dentries_create_net() ignore -EEXIST and return zero instead, or >> >> b) make sure rpcauth_create() releases the old rpc_auth before calling op->create() >> >> c) ?? >> -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NFS: Check if rpcauth_create() returns an error code 2012-06-26 19:00 ` Bryan Schumaker 2012-06-26 19:11 ` Chuck Lever @ 2012-06-26 21:34 ` Chuck Lever 2012-06-26 22:02 ` Myklebust, Trond 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Chuck Lever @ 2012-06-26 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bryan Schumaker, J. Bruce Fields, Olga Kornievskaia Cc: Trond Myklebust, Linux NFS Mailing List On Jun 26, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Bryan Schumaker wrote: > On 06/26/2012 02:23 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: >> >> On Jun 26, 2012, at 2:12 PM, bjschuma@netapp.com wrote: >> >>> From: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com> >>> >>> I was treating a NULL return value as an error, but this function will >>> instead return an ERR_PTR(). Now that I'm checking if the function >>> returns an error, I should also pass the error up the call stack. >> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com> >>> --- >>> fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c | 4 ++-- >>> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 15 ++++----------- >>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c >>> index 017b4b0..a8aafc6 100644 >>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c >>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4namespace.c >>> @@ -205,9 +205,9 @@ struct rpc_clnt *nfs4_create_sec_client(struct rpc_clnt *clnt, struct inode *ino >>> return clone; >>> >>> auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, clone); >>> - if (!auth) { >>> + if (IS_ERR(auth)) { >>> rpc_shutdown_client(clone); >>> - clone = ERR_PTR(-EIO); >>> + clone = ERR_CAST(auth); >>> } >> >> This echoes nfs_init_server_rpcclient(), so it should be adequate. >> >>> >>> return clone; >>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >>> index 5a7b372..f817587 100644 >>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >>> @@ -2356,17 +2356,10 @@ out: >>> static int nfs4_lookup_root_sec(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle, >>> struct nfs_fsinfo *info, rpc_authflavor_t flavor) >>> { >>> - struct rpc_auth *auth; >>> - int ret; >>> - >>> - auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, server->client); >>> - if (!auth) { >>> - ret = -EIO; >>> - goto out; >>> - } >>> - ret = nfs4_lookup_root(server, fhandle, info); >>> -out: >>> - return ret; >>> + struct rpc_auth *auth = rpcauth_create(flavor, server->client); >>> + if (IS_ERR(auth)) >>> + return PTR_ERR(auth); >>> + return nfs4_lookup_root(server, fhandle, info); >>> } >>> >>> static int nfs4_find_root_sec(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *fhandle, >> >> This logic calls rpcauth_create() in a loop, correct? The expectation is that rpcauth_create() should simply replace the nfs_client's rpc_auth with the next flavor each time it is called? >> > > Yeah, that's what I'm expecting to happen. > >> With the current code in nfs4_find_root_sec(), rpcauth_create() with a GSS flavor fails the second time you call it because (I suspect) there's a pipe dentry left over from the previous call. So there's no way to walk an entire list returned from gss_mech_list_flavors(), it will fail on the second GSS flavor every time. > > rpcauth_create() has this bit of code in it: > > if (clnt->cl_auth) > rpcauth_release(clnt->cl_auth); > clnt->cl_auth = auth; > > > I guess I figured rpcauth_release() was already doing the necessary cleanup. The problem is that all GSS pseudoflavors use the same "gssd" upcall pipe, but the RPC client does not appear to be prepared to share that pipe amongst pseudoflavors that exist concurrently. So if rpcauth_create() is called to substitute one GSS pseudoflavor for another, it will always fail because the "gssd" pipe already exists. It appears this bug has been around since late 2008 when the new GSS upcall mechanism was added. We've never hit it because we've never tried to use rpcauth_create() to replace an rpc_auth before. Any caller who is setting up a fresh rpc_clnt can handle a failure from rpcauth_create() reasonably well. But a caller who is attempting to retry an rpcauth_create() with a list of different flavors is SOL; at least the current code leaves the rpc_clnt with the original, working rpc_auth, but it won't allow a caller to replace a GSS flavor with another. How hard would it be to enable the gssd upcall pipe to be shared? > - Bryan >> >> We could: >> >> a) have gss_pipes_dentries_create_net() ignore -EEXIST and return zero instead, or >> >> b) make sure rpcauth_create() releases the old rpc_auth before calling op->create() >> >> c) ?? >> > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NFS: Check if rpcauth_create() returns an error code 2012-06-26 21:34 ` Chuck Lever @ 2012-06-26 22:02 ` Myklebust, Trond 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Myklebust, Trond @ 2012-06-26 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chuck Lever Cc: Schumaker, Bryan, J. Bruce Fields, Olga Kornievskaia, Linux NFS Mailing List T24gVHVlLCAyMDEyLTA2LTI2IGF0IDE3OjM0IC0wNDAwLCBDaHVjayBMZXZlciB3cm90ZToNCj4g T24gSnVuIDI2LCAyMDEyLCBhdCAzOjAwIFBNLCBCcnlhbiBTY2h1bWFrZXIgd3JvdGU6DQo+IA0K PiA+IE9uIDA2LzI2LzIwMTIgMDI6MjMgUE0sIENodWNrIExldmVyIHdyb3RlOg0KPiA+PiANCj4g Pj4gT24gSnVuIDI2LCAyMDEyLCBhdCAyOjEyIFBNLCBianNjaHVtYUBuZXRhcHAuY29tIHdyb3Rl Og0KPiA+PiANCj4gPj4+IEZyb206IEJyeWFuIFNjaHVtYWtlciA8YmpzY2h1bWFAbmV0YXBwLmNv bT4NCj4gPj4+IA0KPiA+Pj4gSSB3YXMgdHJlYXRpbmcgYSBOVUxMIHJldHVybiB2YWx1ZSBhcyBh biBlcnJvciwgYnV0IHRoaXMgZnVuY3Rpb24gd2lsbA0KPiA+Pj4gaW5zdGVhZCByZXR1cm4gYW4g RVJSX1BUUigpLiAgTm93IHRoYXQgSSdtIGNoZWNraW5nIGlmIHRoZSBmdW5jdGlvbg0KPiA+Pj4g cmV0dXJucyBhbiBlcnJvciwgSSBzaG91bGQgYWxzbyBwYXNzIHRoZSBlcnJvciB1cCB0aGUgY2Fs bCBzdGFjay4NCj4gPj4gDQo+ID4+IA0KPiA+Pj4gU2lnbmVkLW9mZi1ieTogQnJ5YW4gU2NodW1h a2VyIDxianNjaHVtYUBuZXRhcHAuY29tPg0KPiA+Pj4gLS0tDQo+ID4+PiBmcy9uZnMvbmZzNG5h bWVzcGFjZS5jIHwgIDQgKystLQ0KPiA+Pj4gZnMvbmZzL25mczRwcm9jLmMgICAgICB8IDE1ICsr KystLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPiA+Pj4gMiBmaWxlcyBjaGFuZ2VkLCA2IGluc2VydGlvbnMoKyksIDEz IGRlbGV0aW9ucygtKQ0KPiA+Pj4gDQo+ID4+PiBkaWZmIC0tZ2l0IGEvZnMvbmZzL25mczRuYW1l c3BhY2UuYyBiL2ZzL25mcy9uZnM0bmFtZXNwYWNlLmMNCj4gPj4+IGluZGV4IDAxN2I0YjAuLmE4 YWFmYzYgMTAwNjQ0DQo+ID4+PiAtLS0gYS9mcy9uZnMvbmZzNG5hbWVzcGFjZS5jDQo+ID4+PiAr KysgYi9mcy9uZnMvbmZzNG5hbWVzcGFjZS5jDQo+ID4+PiBAQCAtMjA1LDkgKzIwNSw5IEBAIHN0 cnVjdCBycGNfY2xudCAqbmZzNF9jcmVhdGVfc2VjX2NsaWVudChzdHJ1Y3QgcnBjX2NsbnQgKmNs bnQsIHN0cnVjdCBpbm9kZSAqaW5vDQo+ID4+PiAJCXJldHVybiBjbG9uZTsNCj4gPj4+IA0KPiA+ Pj4gCWF1dGggPSBycGNhdXRoX2NyZWF0ZShmbGF2b3IsIGNsb25lKTsNCj4gPj4+IC0JaWYgKCFh dXRoKSB7DQo+ID4+PiArCWlmIChJU19FUlIoYXV0aCkpIHsNCj4gPj4+IAkJcnBjX3NodXRkb3du X2NsaWVudChjbG9uZSk7DQo+ID4+PiAtCQljbG9uZSA9IEVSUl9QVFIoLUVJTyk7DQo+ID4+PiAr CQljbG9uZSA9IEVSUl9DQVNUKGF1dGgpOw0KPiA+Pj4gCX0NCj4gPj4gDQo+ID4+IFRoaXMgZWNo b2VzIG5mc19pbml0X3NlcnZlcl9ycGNjbGllbnQoKSwgc28gaXQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGFkZXF1YXRl Lg0KPiA+PiANCj4gPj4+IA0KPiA+Pj4gCXJldHVybiBjbG9uZTsNCj4gPj4+IGRpZmYgLS1naXQg YS9mcy9uZnMvbmZzNHByb2MuYyBiL2ZzL25mcy9uZnM0cHJvYy5jDQo+ID4+PiBpbmRleCA1YTdi MzcyLi5mODE3NTg3IDEwMDY0NA0KPiA+Pj4gLS0tIGEvZnMvbmZzL25mczRwcm9jLmMNCj4gPj4+ ICsrKyBiL2ZzL25mcy9uZnM0cHJvYy5jDQo+ID4+PiBAQCAtMjM1NiwxNyArMjM1NiwxMCBAQCBv dXQ6DQo+ID4+PiBzdGF0aWMgaW50IG5mczRfbG9va3VwX3Jvb3Rfc2VjKHN0cnVjdCBuZnNfc2Vy dmVyICpzZXJ2ZXIsIHN0cnVjdCBuZnNfZmggKmZoYW5kbGUsDQo+ID4+PiAJCQkJc3RydWN0IG5m c19mc2luZm8gKmluZm8sIHJwY19hdXRoZmxhdm9yX3QgZmxhdm9yKQ0KPiA+Pj4gew0KPiA+Pj4g LQlzdHJ1Y3QgcnBjX2F1dGggKmF1dGg7DQo+ID4+PiAtCWludCByZXQ7DQo+ID4+PiAtDQo+ID4+ PiAtCWF1dGggPSBycGNhdXRoX2NyZWF0ZShmbGF2b3IsIHNlcnZlci0+Y2xpZW50KTsNCj4gPj4+ IC0JaWYgKCFhdXRoKSB7DQo+ID4+PiAtCQlyZXQgPSAtRUlPOw0KPiA+Pj4gLQkJZ290byBvdXQ7 DQo+ID4+PiAtCX0NCj4gPj4+IC0JcmV0ID0gbmZzNF9sb29rdXBfcm9vdChzZXJ2ZXIsIGZoYW5k bGUsIGluZm8pOw0KPiA+Pj4gLW91dDoNCj4gPj4+IC0JcmV0dXJuIHJldDsNCj4gPj4+ICsJc3Ry dWN0IHJwY19hdXRoICphdXRoID0gcnBjYXV0aF9jcmVhdGUoZmxhdm9yLCBzZXJ2ZXItPmNsaWVu dCk7DQo+ID4+PiArCWlmIChJU19FUlIoYXV0aCkpDQo+ID4+PiArCQlyZXR1cm4gUFRSX0VSUihh dXRoKTsNCj4gPj4+ICsJcmV0dXJuIG5mczRfbG9va3VwX3Jvb3Qoc2VydmVyLCBmaGFuZGxlLCBp bmZvKTsNCj4gPj4+IH0NCj4gPj4+IA0KPiA+Pj4gc3RhdGljIGludCBuZnM0X2ZpbmRfcm9vdF9z ZWMoc3RydWN0IG5mc19zZXJ2ZXIgKnNlcnZlciwgc3RydWN0IG5mc19maCAqZmhhbmRsZSwNCj4g Pj4gDQo+ID4+IFRoaXMgbG9naWMgY2FsbHMgcnBjYXV0aF9jcmVhdGUoKSBpbiBhIGxvb3AsIGNv cnJlY3Q/ICBUaGUgZXhwZWN0YXRpb24gaXMgdGhhdCBycGNhdXRoX2NyZWF0ZSgpIHNob3VsZCBz aW1wbHkgcmVwbGFjZSB0aGUgbmZzX2NsaWVudCdzIHJwY19hdXRoIHdpdGggdGhlIG5leHQgZmxh dm9yIGVhY2ggdGltZSBpdCBpcyBjYWxsZWQ/DQo+ID4+IA0KPiA+IA0KPiA+IFllYWgsIHRoYXQn cyB3aGF0IEknbSBleHBlY3RpbmcgdG8gaGFwcGVuLg0KPiA+IA0KPiA+PiBXaXRoIHRoZSBjdXJy ZW50IGNvZGUgaW4gbmZzNF9maW5kX3Jvb3Rfc2VjKCksIHJwY2F1dGhfY3JlYXRlKCkgd2l0aCBh IEdTUyBmbGF2b3IgZmFpbHMgdGhlIHNlY29uZCB0aW1lIHlvdSBjYWxsIGl0IGJlY2F1c2UgKEkg c3VzcGVjdCkgdGhlcmUncyBhIHBpcGUgZGVudHJ5IGxlZnQgb3ZlciBmcm9tIHRoZSBwcmV2aW91 cyBjYWxsLiAgU28gdGhlcmUncyBubyB3YXkgdG8gd2FsayBhbiBlbnRpcmUgbGlzdCByZXR1cm5l ZCBmcm9tIGdzc19tZWNoX2xpc3RfZmxhdm9ycygpLCBpdCB3aWxsIGZhaWwgb24gdGhlIHNlY29u ZCBHU1MgZmxhdm9yIGV2ZXJ5IHRpbWUuDQo+ID4gDQo+ID4gcnBjYXV0aF9jcmVhdGUoKSBoYXMg dGhpcyBiaXQgb2YgY29kZSBpbiBpdDoNCj4gPiANCj4gPiAJaWYgKGNsbnQtPmNsX2F1dGgpDQo+ ID4gCQlycGNhdXRoX3JlbGVhc2UoY2xudC0+Y2xfYXV0aCk7DQo+ID4gCWNsbnQtPmNsX2F1dGgg PSBhdXRoOw0KPiA+IA0KPiA+IA0KPiA+IEkgZ3Vlc3MgSSBmaWd1cmVkIHJwY2F1dGhfcmVsZWFz ZSgpIHdhcyBhbHJlYWR5IGRvaW5nIHRoZSBuZWNlc3NhcnkgY2xlYW51cC4NCj4gDQo+IFRoZSBw cm9ibGVtIGlzIHRoYXQgYWxsIEdTUyBwc2V1ZG9mbGF2b3JzIHVzZSB0aGUgc2FtZSAiZ3NzZCIg dXBjYWxsIHBpcGUsIGJ1dCB0aGUgUlBDIGNsaWVudCBkb2VzIG5vdCBhcHBlYXIgdG8gYmUgcHJl cGFyZWQgdG8gc2hhcmUgdGhhdCBwaXBlIGFtb25nc3QgcHNldWRvZmxhdm9ycyB0aGF0IGV4aXN0 IGNvbmN1cnJlbnRseS4NCj4gDQo+IFNvIGlmIHJwY2F1dGhfY3JlYXRlKCkgaXMgY2FsbGVkIHRv IHN1YnN0aXR1dGUgb25lIEdTUyBwc2V1ZG9mbGF2b3IgZm9yIGFub3RoZXIsIGl0IHdpbGwgYWx3 YXlzIGZhaWwgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGUgImdzc2QiIHBpcGUgYWxyZWFkeSBleGlzdHMuDQo+IA0KPiBJ dCBhcHBlYXJzIHRoaXMgYnVnIGhhcyBiZWVuIGFyb3VuZCBzaW5jZSBsYXRlIDIwMDggd2hlbiB0 aGUgbmV3IEdTUyB1cGNhbGwgbWVjaGFuaXNtIHdhcyBhZGRlZC4gIFdlJ3ZlIG5ldmVyIGhpdCBp dCBiZWNhdXNlIHdlJ3ZlIG5ldmVyIHRyaWVkIHRvIHVzZSBycGNhdXRoX2NyZWF0ZSgpIHRvIHJl cGxhY2UgYW4gcnBjX2F1dGggYmVmb3JlLiAgQW55IGNhbGxlciB3aG8gaXMgc2V0dGluZyB1cCBh IGZyZXNoIHJwY19jbG50IGNhbiBoYW5kbGUgYSBmYWlsdXJlIGZyb20gcnBjYXV0aF9jcmVhdGUo KSByZWFzb25hYmx5IHdlbGwuDQo+IA0KPiBCdXQgYSBjYWxsZXIgd2hvIGlzIGF0dGVtcHRpbmcg dG8gcmV0cnkgYW4gcnBjYXV0aF9jcmVhdGUoKSB3aXRoIGEgbGlzdCBvZiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgZmxh dm9ycyBpcyBTT0w7IGF0IGxlYXN0IHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IGNvZGUgbGVhdmVzIHRoZSBycGNfY2xu dCB3aXRoIHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCwgd29ya2luZyBycGNfYXV0aCwgYnV0IGl0IHdvbid0IGFsbG93 IGEgY2FsbGVyIHRvIHJlcGxhY2UgYSBHU1MgZmxhdm9yIHdpdGggYW5vdGhlci4NCj4gDQo+IEhv dyBoYXJkIHdvdWxkIGl0IGJlIHRvIGVuYWJsZSB0aGUgZ3NzZCB1cGNhbGwgcGlwZSB0byBiZSBz aGFyZWQ/DQoNCk5vLiBUaGlzIGlzIGEgbmV3IHByb2JsZW0sIGFuZCBpcyBwcm9iYWJseSBhIGNv bnNlcXVlbmNlIG9mIHRoZSBuZXQNCm5hbWVzcGFjZSBjb2RlLiBQcmlvciB0byB0aGF0LCB0aGUg cnBjYXV0aCBjb2RlIHdvdWxkIGp1c3QgdGFrZSBhDQpyZWZlcmVuY2UgdG8gdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5n IHVwY2FsbCBwaXBlIGlmIGl0IGhhZCBhbHJlYWR5IGJlZW4gY3JlYXRlZC4NCg0KVGhlIHNvbHV0 aW9uIGhlcmUgd291bGQgYmUgdG8gY3JlYXRlIGEgcGVyLXJwY19jbGllbnQsIHBlci1waXBlbmFt ZQ0Kc2hhcmVkICdycGNzZWNfZ3NzX3BpcGUnIG9iamVjdCB0aGF0IGhvbGRzIHRoZSB1cGNhbGwg cGlwZSBkYXRhLg0KDQotLSANClRyb25kIE15a2xlYnVzdA0KTGludXggTkZTIGNsaWVudCBtYWlu dGFpbmVyDQoNCk5ldEFwcA0KVHJvbmQuTXlrbGVidXN0QG5ldGFwcC5jb20NCnd3dy5uZXRhcHAu Y29tDQoNCg== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-06-26 22:03 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-06-26 18:12 [PATCH] NFS: Check if rpcauth_create() returns an error code bjschuma 2012-06-26 18:23 ` Chuck Lever 2012-06-26 19:00 ` Bryan Schumaker 2012-06-26 19:11 ` Chuck Lever 2012-06-26 21:34 ` Chuck Lever 2012-06-26 22:02 ` Myklebust, Trond
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.