On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:45:03 -0500
shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Start calculation auth response within a session. Move/Add pertinet
> data structures like session key, server challenge and ntlmv2_hash in
> a session structure. We should do the calculations within a session
> before copying session key and response over to server data
> structures because a session setup can fail.
>
> Only after a very first smb session succeeds, it copies/makes its
> session key, session key of smb connection. This key stays with
> the smb connection throughout its life.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx>
> bcc_ptr += CIFS_SESS_KEY_SIZE;
> if (ses->capabilities & CAP_UNICODE) {
> @@ -3175,6 +3176,15 @@ int cifs_setup_session(unsigned int xid, struct cifsSesInfo *ses,
> if (rc) {
> cERROR(1, "Send error in SessSetup = %d", rc);
> } else {
> + mutex_lock(&ses->server->srv_mutex);
> + if (!server->session_estab) {
> + memcpy(&server->session_key.data,
> + &ses->auth_key.data, ses->auth_key.len);
> + server->session_key.len = ses->auth_key.len;
> + ses->server->session_estab = true;
^^^^
nit: Aren't "server" and "ses->server" the
same? Why access them differently here?
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&server->srv_mutex);
> +
^^^^^^
What are the rules for locking around the session_estab
flag? Here you're holding the srv_mutex when checking
and altering it, but in cifs_reconnect you're altering
it without holding the mutex. Is that a potential race
condition?
> cFYI(1, "CIFS Session Established successfully");
> spin_lock(&GlobalMid_Lock);
> ses->status = CifsGood;
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
