On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 18:13 +0400, Vitaliy Gusev wrote:
> >From RFC5661, 18.36.3:
>
> ca_maxoperations:
>
> For the backchannel, the server MUST
> NOT change the value the client offers. For the fore channel,
> the server MAY change the requested value.
>
> ca_maxrequests:
>
> For the backchannel, the server MUST NOT change the
> value the client offers. For the fore channel, the server MAY
> change the requested value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaliy Gusev <gusev.vitaliy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 6 +++---
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> index 5da5355..b144ec3 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -5197,7 +5197,7 @@ static int nfs4_verify_fore_channel_attrs(struct nfs41_create_session_args *args
> */
> if (rcvd->max_ops < sent->max_ops)
> return -EINVAL;
> - if (rcvd->max_reqs == 0)
> + if (rcvd->max_reqs == 0 || rcvd->max_reqs > NFS4_MAX_SLOT_TABLE)
> return -EINVAL;
This looks incorrect.
If the server offers > NFS4_MAX_SLOT_TABLE slots, the client shouldn't
be calling that an error. It should just limit its usage to the first
NFS4_MAX_SLOT_TABLE slots.
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -5214,9 +5214,9 @@ static int nfs4_verify_back_channel_attrs(struct nfs41_create_session_args *args
> if (rcvd->max_resp_sz_cached > sent->max_resp_sz_cached)
> return -EINVAL;
> /* These would render the backchannel useless: */
> - if (rcvd->max_ops == 0)
> + if (rcvd->max_ops != sent->max_ops)
> return -EINVAL;
> - if (rcvd->max_reqs == 0)
> + if (rcvd->max_reqs != sent->max_reqs)
> return -EINVAL;
ACK on this hunk...
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��w��� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
