- 01 6月, 2012 40 次提交
-
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Whoops: first, I reimplemented the already-existing has_resources without noticing; second, I got the test backwards. I did pick a better name, though. Combine the two.... Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
In the NFSv4.1 client-reboot case we're currently removing the client's previous state in exchange_id. That's wrong--we should be waiting till the confirming create_session. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
The comment is redundant, and if we really want dprintk's here they'd probably be better in the common (check-slot_seqid) code. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
The client should ignore the returned sequence_id in the case where the CONFIRMED flag is set on an exchange_id reply--and in the unconfirmed case "1" is always the right response. So it shouldn't actually matter what we return here. We could continue returning 1 just to catch clients ignoring the spec here, but I'd rather be generous. Other things equal, returning the existing sequence_id seems more informative. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Otherwise nfsd4_set_ex_flags writes over the return flags. Reported-by: NBryan Schumaker <bjschuma@netapp.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
This can't happen: - cl_time is zeroed only by unhash_client_locked, which is only ever called under both the state lock and the client lock. - every caller of renew_client() should have looked up a (non-expired) client and then called renew_client() all without dropping the state lock. - the only other caller of renew_client_locked() is release_session_client(), which first checks under the client_lock that the cl_time is nonzero. So make it clear that this is a bug, not something we handle. I can't quite bring myself to make this a BUG(), though, as there are a lot of renew_client() callers, and returning here is probably safer than a BUG(). We'll consider making it a BUG() after some more cleanup. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
The cases here divide into two main categories: - if there's an uncomfirmed record with a matching verifier, then this is a "normal", succesful case: we're either creating a new client, or updating an existing one. - otherwise, this is a weird case: a replay, or a server reboot. Reordering to reflect that makes the code a bit more concise and the logic a lot easier to understand. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Note CLID_INUSE is for the case where two clients are trying to use the same client-provided long-form client identifiers. But what we're looking at here is the server-returned shorthand client id--if those clash there's a bug somewhere. Fix the error return, pull the check out into common code, and do the check unconditionally in all cases. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
New clients are created only by nfsd4_setclientid(), which always gives any new client a unique clientid. The only exception is in the "callback update" case, in which case it may create an unconfirmed client with the same clientid as a confirmed client. In that case it also checks that the confirmed client has the same credential. Therefore, it is pointless for setclientid_confirm to check whether a confirmed and unconfirmed client with the same clientid have matching credentials--they're guaranteed to. Instead, it should be checking whether the credential on the setclientid_confirm matches either of those. Otherwise, it could be anyone sending the setclientid_confirm. Granted, I can't see why anyone would, but still it's probalby safer to check. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Boy, is this simpler. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
The code here is mostly the same. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Be a little more concise. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Move the rq_flavor into struct svc_cred, and use it in setclientid and exchange_id comparisons as well. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
The typical setclientid or exchange_id will probably be performed with a credential that maps to either root or nobody, so comparing just uid's is unlikely to be useful. So, use everything else we can get our hands on. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Instead of keeping the principal name associated with a request in a structure that's private to auth_gss and using an accessor function, move it to svc_cred. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
RFC 5661 actually says we should allow an exchange_id to remove a matching client, even if the exchange_id comes from a different principal, *if* the victim client lacks any state. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Minor cleanup: it's simpler to have separate code paths for the update and non-update cases. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Make these comments a bit more concise and uniform. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Following rfc 5661 section 2.4.1, we can permit a 4.1 client to remove an established 4.0 client's state. (But we don't allow updates.) Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
We mustn't allow a client to destroy another client with established state unless it has the right credential. And some minor cleanup. (Note: our comparison of credentials is actually pretty bogus currently; that will need to be fixed in another patch.) Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
There's no point to the dprintk here as the main proc_compound loop already does this. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
We just verified above that these two verifiers are already the same. Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 J. Bruce Fields 提交于
Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Weston Andros Adamson 提交于
debugfs read operations were returning the contents of an uninitialized u64. Signed-off-by: NWeston Andros Adamson <dros@netapp.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Jeff Layton 提交于
Handle the st_deny_bmap in a similar fashion to the st_access_bmap. Add accessor functions and use those instead of bare bitops. Signed-off-by: NJeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Jeff Layton 提交于
Currently, we do this for the most part with "bare" bitops, but eventually we'll need to expand the share mode code to handle access and deny modes on other nodes. In order to facilitate that code in the future, move to some generic accessor functions. For now, these are mostly static inlines, but eventually we'll want to move these to "real" functions that are able to handle multi-node configurations or have a way to "swap in" new operations to be done in lieu of or in conjunction with these atomic bitops. Signed-off-by: NJeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Jeff Layton 提交于
All of the callers treat the return that way already. Signed-off-by: NJeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Jeff Layton 提交于
These functions are identical. Also, rename them to bmap_to_share_mode to better reflect what they do, and have them just return the result instead of passing in a pointer to the storage location. Signed-off-by: NJeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Chuck Lever 提交于
According to RFC 3530bis, the only items SETCLIENTID_CONFIRM processing should be concerned with is the clientid, clientid verifier, and principal. The client's IP address is not supposed to be interesting. And, NFS4ERR_CLID_INUSE is meant only for principal mismatches. I triggered this logic with a prototype UCS client -- one that uses the same nfs_client_id4 string for all servers. The client mounted our server via its IPv4, then via its IPv6 address. Signed-off-by: NChuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Stanislav Kinsbursky 提交于
Signed-off-by: NStanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@parallels.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Stanislav Kinsbursky 提交于
This is just a code move, which from my POV makes the code look better. I.e. now on start we have 3 different stages: 1) Service creation. 2) Service per-net data allocation. 3) Service start. Signed-off-by: NStanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@parallels.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Stanislav Kinsbursky 提交于
Signed-off-by: NStanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@parallels.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Stanislav Kinsbursky 提交于
This function creates service if it doesn't exist, or increases usage counter if it does, and returns a pointer to it. The usage counter will be droppepd by svc_destroy() later in lockd_up(). Signed-off-by: NStanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@parallels.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Stanislav Kinsbursky 提交于
This patch also replaces svc_rpcb_setup() with svc_bind(). Signed-off-by: NStanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@parallels.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Stanislav Kinsbursky 提交于
Signed-off-by: NStanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@parallels.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-
由 Jeff Layton 提交于
There's little point in waiting until after we allocate all of the pages to see if we're going to overrun the array. In the event that this calculation is really off we could end up scribbling over a bunch of memory and make it tougher to debug. Signed-off-by: NJeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
-