On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:05:39 -0500
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 11:27 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > When handling the gssd downcall, the kernel should distinguish between a
> > successful downcall that contains an error code and a failed downcall
> > (i.e. where the parsing failed or some other sort of problem occurred).
> >
> > In the former case, gss_pipe_downcall should be returning the number of
> > bytes written to the pipe instead of an error.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c | 3 +++
> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c
> > index 3c3c50f..7afc8e2 100644
> > --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c
> > +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c
> > @@ -645,6 +645,9 @@ gss_pipe_downcall(struct file *filp, const char __user *src, size_t mlen)
> > if (IS_ERR(p)) {
> > err = PTR_ERR(p);
> > gss_msg->msg.errno = (err == -EAGAIN) ? -EAGAIN : -EACCES;
> > + /* special case: downcall was successful, but held an error */
> > + if (err == -EACCES)
> > + err = mlen;
>
> That line immediately above your fix still looks wrong. The point is
> that AFAICS, err is never going to be set to EAGAIN. It can be EFAULT,
> ENOSYS, or ENOMEM, but it will never be EAGAIN...
>
> I think we should rather reverse that test. Really, what we want to do,
> is to set msg.errno to -EAGAIN for -EFAULT and -ENOMEM (and probably for
> ENOSYS too), and then set it to -EACCES _only_ in the case where the
> user was not authorised.
What should we do if err is "none of the above"? Set msg.errno to
-EACCES and return the error to the pipe writer?
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
