On Jul 13, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/13/2015 03:03 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> static int nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip6(const struct sockaddr *sa1,
>>> const struct sockaddr *sa2)
>>> {
>>> const struct sockaddr_in6 *sin1 = (const struct sockaddr_in6 *)sa1;
>>> const struct sockaddr_in6 *sin2 = (const struct sockaddr_in6 *)sa2;
>>>
>>> - return nfs_sockaddr_match_ipaddr6(sa1, sa2) &&
>>> - (sin1->sin6_port == sin2->sin6_port);
>>> + return rpc_cmp_addr6(sa1, sa2) && (sin1->sin6_port == sin2->sin6_port);
>>> }
>>>
>>> static int nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip4(const struct sockaddr *sa1,
>>> @@ -350,31 +301,8 @@ static int nfs_sockaddr_cmp_ip4(const struct sockaddr *sa1,
>>> const struct sockaddr_in *sin1 = (const struct sockaddr_in *)sa1;
>>> const struct sockaddr_in *sin2 = (const struct sockaddr_in *)sa2;
>>>
>>> - return nfs_sockaddr_match_ipaddr4(sa1, sa2) &&
>>> - (sin1->sin_port == sin2->sin_port);
>>> -}
>>
>> I'd say kill nfs_sockaddr_cmp as well and use rpc_cmp_addr in
>> nfs_match_client.
>>
>
> Okay, looking closer at the code now. rpc_cmp_addr() explicitely doesn't check for port number, but nfs_sockaddr_cmp() does. I could add port checking to rpc_cmp_addr(), but I don't know if it was left out intentionally when the code was written.
Consider adding rpc_cmp_addr_port() which does port checking too?
--
Chuck Lever
--
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
