Re: [PATCH 2/4] svcrpc: fix error-handling on badd gssproxy downcall

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 04:45:52PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 15:23 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:37:12AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 11:15 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > For every other problem here we bail out with an error, but here for
> > > > some reason we're setting a negative cache entry (with, note, an
> > > > undefined expiry).
> > > > 
> > > > It seems simplest just to bail out in the same way as we do in other
> > > > cases.
> > > > 
> > > > Cc: Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>
> > > > Reported-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c |    4 ++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c
> > > > index 09fb638..008cdad 100644
> > > > --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c
> > > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c
> > > > @@ -1167,8 +1167,8 @@ static int gss_proxy_save_rsc(struct cache_detail *cd,
> > > >  	if (!ud->found_creds) {
> > > >  		/* userspace seem buggy, we should always get at least a
> > > >  		 * mapping to nobody */
> > > > -		dprintk("RPC:       No creds found, marking Negative!\n");
> > > > -		set_bit(CACHE_NEGATIVE, &rsci.h.flags);
> > > > +		dprintk("RPC:       No creds found!\n");
> > > > +		goto out;
> > > >  	} else {
> > > >  
> > > >  		/* steal creds */
> > > 
> > > IIRC, we are doing this to avoid rapid upcall loops in the kernel, where
> > > we keep hammering upcalls out and keep getting an error back.
> > 
> > Looks like returning an error instead results in closing the connection
> > to the client, so, depends how the client replies I guess.
> > 
> > In any case I don't see why we'd treat this particular gss-proxy bug
> > differently than we would any other (like, say, passing down bad xdr, or
> > a gss context that we can't import).
> 
> Uhmm I did not recall that, I guess the change is ok then.

OK, thanks for the review.

--b.