Hi Andy,
On 12/12/2016 12:08 PM, andros@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The current code sets the expiry_time on the local copy of the rsc
> cache entry - but not on the actual cache entry.
> Note that currently, the rsc cache entries are not cleaned up even
> when nfsd is stopped.
>
> Update the cache with the new expiry_time of now so that cache_clean will
> clean up (free) the context to be destroyed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c
> index 45662d7..6033389 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/svcauth_gss.c
> @@ -1393,6 +1393,26 @@ static void destroy_use_gss_proxy_proc_entry(struct net *net) {}
>
> #endif /* CONFIG_PROC_FS */
>
> +static int rsc_destroy(struct sunrpc_net *sn, struct rsc *rscp)
> +{
> + struct rsc new;
Can you avoid the memset by initializing new to 0 directly?
struct rsc new = {0};
> + int ret = -ENOMEM;
> +
> + memset(&new, 0, sizeof(struct rsc));
> + if (dup_netobj(&new.handle, &rscp->handle))
> + goto out;
> + new.h.expiry_time = get_seconds();
> + set_bit(CACHE_NEGATIVE, &new.h.flags);
Alternatively, would it make sense to initialize new with these values directly, rather than setting them afterwards?
> +
> + rscp = rsc_update(sn->rsc_cache, &new, rscp);
> + if (!rscp)
> + goto out;
> + ret = 0;
> +out:
> + rsc_free(&new);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Accept an rpcsec packet.
> * If context establishment, punt to user space
> @@ -1489,10 +1509,18 @@ static void destroy_use_gss_proxy_proc_entry(struct net *net) {}
> case RPC_GSS_PROC_DESTROY:
> if (gss_write_verf(rqstp, rsci->mechctx, gc->gc_seq))
> goto auth_err;
> - rsci->h.expiry_time = get_seconds();
> - set_bit(CACHE_NEGATIVE, &rsci->h.flags);
> + if (rsc_destroy(sn, rsci))
If you're just checking success / failure here, would it make sense to have rsc_destroy() return a boolean value rather than an error code? Do you expect it could be used anywhere that the error code would make a difference?
Thanks,
Anna
> + goto drop;
> + /**
> + * Balance the cache_put at the end of svcauth_gss_accept.This
> + * will leave the refcount = 1 so that the cache_clean cache_put
> + * will call rsc_put.
> + */
> + cache_get(&rsci->h);
> +
> if (resv->iov_len + 4 > PAGE_SIZE)
> goto drop;
> +
> svc_putnl(resv, RPC_SUCCESS);
> goto complete;
> case RPC_GSS_PROC_DATA:
>
--
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
