On 2015-11-01 20:26, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2015-11-01 11:51, Andreas Radke wrote:
>>> Am Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:51:54 -0400
>>> schrieb Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> The 1.0.1 version of libtirpc has just been release.
>>>>
>>>> In this release the SONAME has been changed to 3.0.0 to
>>>> reflect a number of changes in the API. Those changes
>>>> were needed to make the Linux version of libtirpc
>>>> more compatible with other implementations
>>> This break rpcbind recompilation:
>>>
>>> src/rpcb_svc_com.c: In function 'handle_reply':
>>> src/rpcb_svc_com.c:1298:6: error: 'SVCXPRT {aka struct __rpc_svcxprt}'
>>> has no member named 'xp_auth' xprt->xp_auth = &svc_auth_none;
>>> ^
>>> In file included from /usr/include/tirpc/rpc/rpc.h:62:0,
>>> from src/rpcb_svc_com.c:48:
>>> src/rpcb_svc_com.c:1300:22: error: 'SVCXPRT {aka struct __rpc_svcxprt}'
>>> has no member named 'xp_auth' SVCAUTH_DESTROY(xprt->xp_auth);
>>> ^
>>> /usr/include/tirpc/rpc/svc_auth.h:63:7: note: in definition of macro
>>> 'SVCAUTH_DESTROY' ((*((auth)->svc_ah_ops->svc_ah_destroy))(auth))
>>> ^
>>> src/rpcb_svc_com.c:1300:22: error: 'SVCXPRT {aka struct __rpc_svcxprt}'
>>> has no member named 'xp_auth' SVCAUTH_DESTROY(xprt->xp_auth);
>>> ^
>>> /usr/include/tirpc/rpc/svc_auth.h:63:43: note: in definition of macro
>>> 'SVCAUTH_DESTROY' ((*((auth)->svc_ah_ops->svc_ah_destroy))(auth))
>>> ^
>>> src/rpcb_svc_com.c:1301:6: error: 'SVCXPRT {aka struct __rpc_svcxprt}'
>>> has no member named 'xp_auth' xprt->xp_auth = NULL;
>>> ^
>>> Makefile:481: recipe for target 'src/rpcb_svc_com.o' failed
>>> make: *** [src/rpcb_svc_com.o] Error 1
>>> make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>>> ==> ERROR: A failure occurred in build().
>>>
>>> Do you have a fix?
>>>
>> Should be as simple as (not even compile-tested):
>>
>> diff --git a/src/rpcb_svc_com.c b/src/rpcb_svc_com.c
>> index 4ae93f1..38f163f 100644
>> --- a/src/rpcb_svc_com.c
>> +++ b/src/rpcb_svc_com.c
>> @@ -1295,10 +1295,8 @@ handle_reply(int fd, SVCXPRT *xprt)
>> a.rmt_localvers = fi->versnum;
>>
>> xprt_set_caller(xprt, fi);
>> - xprt->xp_auth = &svc_auth_none;
>> + SVC_XP_AUTH(xprt) = svc_auth_none;
>> svc_sendreply(xprt, (xdrproc_t) xdr_rmtcall_result, (char *) &a);
>> - SVCAUTH_DESTROY(xprt->xp_auth);
>> - xprt->xp_auth = NULL;
>> done:
>> if (buffer)
>> free(buffer);
>>
>> But that breaks compatibility with earlier libtirpc of course…
>>
> #if defined(SVC_XP_AUTH)
> SVC_XP_AUTH(xprt) = svc_auth_none;
> #else
>
> . . .
>
> #endif
>
> But I wonder if that’s even necessary now. See rpcbind
> commit 86036582c001.
>
Yes, it is fishy to clobber the server auth stuff, so it is probably best to just zap
the svc_auth_none assignment altogether. However, the core initializes the
server auth to svc_auth_none at the beginning of handling each separate call,
so if you somehow use a xprt to send replies before it has taken a call (is that
even possible?), there will be no server auth. In that very dubious case, the
assignment is essential.
I have not looked at the rpcbind code in any depth whatsoever and don't know
anything about the semantics of this "handle_reply" function. But, since it is
a "reply", there will presumably have been a preceding "call", presumably on
the same transport, in which case the server auth have been initialized. So, it
is safe to drop the svc_auth_none assignment. Presumably. :-)
Cheers,
Peter
--
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
