On Sep. 17, 2008, 18:34 -0500, Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sep. 17, 2008, 18:10 -0500, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 02:43:44PM -0500, Benny Halevy wrote:
>>> From: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> since commit ff7d9756b501744540be65e172d27ee321d86103
>>> "nfsd: use static memory for callback program and stats"
>>> do_probe_callback uses a static callback program
>>> (NFS4_CALLBACK) rather than the one set in clp->cl_callback.cb_prog
>>> as passed in by the client in setclientid (4.0)
>>> or create_session (4.1).
>> Ugh, yes, sorry about that. (I wonder why pynfs testing didn't catch
>> this? Oh, I guess it's because NFS4_CALLBACK is the program number our
>> client always gives us.)
>
> Well, Fred (thanks!) added a test today which uses a non-default
> callback program and he sees a corresponding callback coming back.
>
> (Note that this test is not absolutely generic as the server is
> not required to probe the callback immediately, or at all, after
> setclientid or create_session.)
>
>>> @@ -371,6 +356,8 @@ static int do_probe_callback(void *data)
>>> .to_maxval = (NFSD_LEASE_TIME/2) * HZ,
>>> .to_exponential = 1,
>>> };
>>> + static struct rpc_stat cb_stats;
>>> + struct rpc_program cb_program;
>>> struct rpc_create_args args = {
>>> .protocol = IPPROTO_TCP,
>>> .address = (struct sockaddr *)&addr,
>>> @@ -394,6 +381,20 @@ static int do_probe_callback(void *data)
>>> addr.sin_port = htons(cb->cb_port);
>>> addr.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(cb->cb_addr);
>>>
>>> + /* Initialize rpc_program */
>>> + memset(&cb_program, 0, sizeof(cb_program));
>>> + cb_program.name = "nfs4_cb";
>>> + cb_program.number = clp->cl_callback.cb_prog;
>>> + cb_program.nrvers = ARRAY_SIZE(nfs_cb_version);
>>> + cb_program.version = nfs_cb_version;
>>> + cb_program.stats = &cb_stats;
>>> + memset(&cb_stats, 0, sizeof(cb_stats));
>>> + cb_stats.program = &cb_program;
>> You don't want a pointer to data on the stack here, do you?
>
> Hmm, you're right...
> I went back and forth whether this should be allocated statically,
> dynamically, or on the stack. I was mislead by the fact we're doing
> a sync rpc call, but indeed this needs to live until the nfs client
> is destroyed. I'm trying to fully understand what Olga saw
> before coming up with a new proposal... maybe putting the cb_program
> back into struct nfs4_callback and just make cb_stats static would
> provide a solution of the problem Olga witnessed and keep everybody
> happy.
It looks like the gss_cred references the rpc_client and that is used
in gss_destroying_context. However, I couldn't find a call to
rpc_release_client from the gss_cred destruction path.
Shouldn't gss_create formally kref the clnt and gss_free_cred
call rpc_release_client(gss_cred->client)?
If so, I think we could teach the rpc_client to allocate the
program and stats dynamically and let rpc_free_client() to free them
along with the rpc_client.
Benny
>
> Benny
>
>> --b.
>
> _______________________________________________
> pNFS mailing list
> pNFS@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pnfs
--
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
