linux-kernel - Re: nfsd bugfixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:35:01 +1100
From:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:	nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nfsd bugfixes

(CC: trimmed - as Bruce says: separate discussion)

On Monday November 12, bfields@...ldses.org wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:08:42AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> > Calling nfsd_setuser an extra time does open us up for a very tiny
> > possibility of an ENOMEM at an awkward time.
> 
> Hm.  Could you give an example of possible consequences?

Just that you could get an ENOMEM in the middle of a NFSv4 COMPOUND.
I guess that should result in NFSERR_RESOURCE and we just hope the
client is able to cope and resend the remainder of the compound.
Though looking at the code, ENOMEM becomes nfserr_dropit... does that
mean the we would drop the whole request and the client would need to
resend, possibly duplicating non-idempotent portions?

Mainly, it just feels unclean.

> 
> (Though note this is somewhat of a separate discussion, since this
> particular patch doesn't add a call to nfsd_setuser().)

Hmm, you are right, we already call nfsd_setuser in both paths, you we
just adding the check for privileged port - doh ;-)

NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/