Hi Andy,
On 12/23/2016 11:04 AM, andros@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c
> index 16cea00..96135da 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/auth_gss/auth_gss.c
> @@ -1869,6 +1869,11 @@ static void gss_wrap_req_encode(kxdreproc_t encode, struct rpc_rqst *rqstp,
> case RPC_GSS_SVC_PRIVACY:
> status = gss_wrap_req_priv(cred, ctx, encode, rqstp, p, obj);
> break;
> + case RPC_GSS_SVC_CHANNEL_PROT:
Would it make more sense to simply use "default:" here instead? That way we do the right thing if an invalid value is somehow set for gc_service.
> + status = -EIO;
> + pr_warn("RPC Unsupported service level %d\n",
> + gss_cred->gc_service);
> + break;
> }
> out:
> gss_put_ctx(ctx);
> @@ -1979,6 +1984,11 @@ static void gss_wrap_req_encode(kxdreproc_t encode, struct rpc_rqst *rqstp,
> if (status)
> goto out;
> break;
> + case RPC_GSS_SVC_CHANNEL_PROT:
> + status = -EIO;
> + pr_warn("RPC Unsupported service level %d\n",
> + gss_cred->gc_service);
Same question here.
Thanks,
Anna
> + goto out;
> }
> /* take into account extra slack for integrity and privacy cases: */
> cred->cr_auth->au_rslack = cred->cr_auth->au_verfsize + (p - savedp)
>
--
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
