On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:51:13 -0400 Michael Mol <mikemol@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/27/2013 10:15 PM, Steve French wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:39:30 -0400 > >> Michael Mol <mikemol@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> I notice the patch in this message > >>> > >>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cifs/7655/focus=7671 > >>> > >>> Never made it into Linus's tree. It's also not in Debian or RedHat's > >>> kernels. I'm running into this on CentOS. > >>> > >>> Has there been any activity on this issue since December? > >>> > >>> Incidentally, I filed a bug report on bugs.redhat.com relating to what > >>> I'm hitting: > >>> > >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928516 > >>> > >> > >> If you have a support contract with Red Hat, then it would be best to > >> open a support case, which will help make the case for its inclusion > >> into the RHEL kernel. > >> > >>> I'm looking for a good reason to (or to not) apply the patches to the > >>> current RH kernel on my systems; I rather need it for my current project. > >>> > >>> (I'd respond via the linux-cifs list, but Thunderbird is being a PITA > >>> and preventing me from subscribing to it via gmane's NNTP, through which > >>> I'd be able to reply to the thread directly...) > >>> > >> > >> You're correct that it never made it in. I think the patch makes > >> sense...Steve, was there some reason you didn't merge it? > >> > >> In the meantime, if you're able to test the patch and reply on-list > >> with the results then that would be helpful. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -- > >> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > I don't remember getting any other test feedback on it - do we have > > some additional tested-by to add (or anyone else review it). I didn't > > personally try it (I was traveling during the holiday break when it > > was discussed) and I didn't see it in Jeff's tree so I assumed that he > > found a problem with it. > > I think I thought you had merged it for 3.8 and dropped it. I never saw any problems with it. Let's get it in for 3.9. > > Does it fix your situation? > > I haven't tried it, but: > > 1) When I hit my problem symptoms, I hypothesized a probable cause. > (desync of crypto state between client and server) > 2) The patch addresses the same class of bug. > > Based on my understanding of the components involved, I think it highly > likely the patch will fix it. I do have a server I can test it on, so > I'll give it a try. > > While I'm here, I'll raise one other thing...the code increments the > sequence number twice when preparing a send, once for the send, and once > for response. My gut tells me that it would be less sloppy to instead > increment once for send, and once at the time of receipt...but updating > the sequence number at that time might carry an unnecessary performance > penalty, and so perhaps that's a valid use of the server's receive > window. (I haven't studied the protocol in depth, though, so I might be > way off.) > > No, I think you're quite right. It would be much cleaner to do it that way. That's a bit more of an overhaul though, and I think the patch is appropriate as-is for now. Cheers, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
