On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:43 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 05:15:37PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 02:11:29PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>
>>> On Oct 15, 2010, at 2:08 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:39:36PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 15, 2010, at 12:05 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 03:53:08PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>>>>>>> There's the only difference betseen the xs_bind4 and the
>>>>>>> xs_bind6 - the size of sockaddr structure they use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fortunatelly its size can be indirectly get from the transport.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Change since v1:
>>>>>>> * use sockaddr_storage instead of sockaddr
>>>>>>> * use rpc_set_port instead of manual port assigning
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whoops, dropping this; it breaks nfsd startup. I haven't figured out
>>>>>> why yet, but I get
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RPC: server localhost requires stronger authentication.
>>>>>> svc: failed to register nfsdv2 RPC service (errno 13).
>>>>>
>>>>> Capturing a network trace of lo during server initialization should reveal all. Compare a trace from a working run and a non-working one.
>>>>
>>>> Hm. One difference is the source port of the portmap calls: 33471 in
>>>> the bad case, 1016 in the bad.--b.
>>>
>>> 1016 in the good... yes, that's because the server's registration upcall needs a privileged port, and xs_bind is not obliging here. That certainly would result in a "requires stronger authentication" error from rpcbind.
>>
>> So, adding some printk's: the problem is that the patch assumes that the
>> trasnport->xprt.addrlen and transport->srcaddr.ss_family have been
>> initialized at this point. But they haven't been. I don't know where
>> that's supposed to happen.
>
> Sorry, I meant just the family, the length seems fine.
>
> I'll just fold this into the relevant patches and push out the result if
> nobody objects.
>
> --b.
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> index 8dc287f..324d97a 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> @@ -1625,6 +1625,7 @@ static struct socket *xs_create_sock(struct rpc_xprt *xprt,
> protocol, -err);
> goto out;
> }
> + transport->srcaddr.ss_family = family;
> xs_reclassify_socket(family, sock);
>
> if (xs_bind(transport, sock)) {
Can you post the full revised patch? I'm wondering if it's OK to init the sockaddr's family that way, but I can't tell from just the snippet.
--
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
