linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] Represent RPC Callers

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, 06 Jan 2009 08:04:22 -0500
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] Represent RPC Callers

On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 17:13 -0800, Matt Helsley wrote:
> plain text document attachment (move-rpc-client-nodename-cache.patch)
> Currently RPC needs to know the nodename (often the same as the hostname) which
> should be used for UNIX-style authentication and file-lock tracking. Because
> hostname can change between RPC calls and some sequences of RPC calls may
> require consistent names between calls RPC currently saves the nodename with
> the RPC client structure.
> 
> This is doesn't always work because RPC clients may be discarded over the
> lifetime of a higher level service -- like those that compose NFS. Specifically
> this is known to happen during shutdown.
> 
> Hence RPC should expect the nodename to be saved by the caller when sequences
> of RPC calls requiring consistent nodenames may be needed (e.g. NFS). To enable
> this we introduce an RPC caller structure that allows RPC to query the caller
> for this information.
> 
> This patch is not complete but is meant to indicate the direction I'm planning
> on going. I'd like to know if there are any objections or if anyone sees a
> better way to handle this.

You're planning on slowing down every RPC call in order to fix a problem
on client shutdown? Why?

Trond

--
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/