Hi Trond-
On Apr 19, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
..and always destroy using a 'soft' RPC call. Destroying GSS
credentials
isn't mandatory; the server can always cope with a few credentials not
getting destroyed in a timely fashion.
These two changes may have different side-effects, but backing out
this patch will revert both changes. Should these be split into
separate patches to facilitate git bisect?
This actually fixes a hang situation. Basically, some servers will
decide
that the client is crazy if it tries to destroy an RPC context for
which
they have sent an RPCSEC_GSS_CREDPROBLEM, and so will refuse to talk
to it
for a while.
That seems unfriendly. Is this server-side behavior mandated? Why
wouldn't the server just treat an extraneous context destruction
request as a successful no-op?
You definitely should include an explanation of this server-side
behavior in the documenting comment for gss_destroying_context.
The regression therefor probably was introduced by commit
0df7fb74fbb709591301871a38aac7735a1d6583.
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/
auth_gss.c
index d34f6df..55948cd 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c
@@ -710,7 +710,7 @@ gss_destroying_context(struct rpc_cred *cred)
struct rpc_task *task;
if (gss_cred->gc_ctx == NULL ||
- gss_cred->gc_ctx->gc_proc == RPC_GSS_PROC_DESTROY)
+ test_and_clear_bit(RPCAUTH_CRED_UPTODATE, &cred->cr_flags) == 0)
return 0;
gss_cred->gc_ctx->gc_proc = RPC_GSS_PROC_DESTROY;
@@ -720,7 +720,7 @@ gss_destroying_context(struct rpc_cred *cred)
* by the RPC call or by the put_rpccred() below */
get_rpccred(cred);
- task = rpc_call_null(gss_auth->client, cred, RPC_TASK_ASYNC);
+ task = rpc_call_null(gss_auth->client, cred, RPC_TASK_ASYNC|
RPC_TASK_SOFT);
if (!IS_ERR(task))
rpc_put_task(task);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
