| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1060728051003.570@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:10:03 +1000
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 004 of 4] knfsd: Correctly handle error condition from lockd_up
If lockd_up fails - what should we expect? Do we have to later call lockd_down?
Well the nfs client thinks "no", the nfs server thinks "yes".
lockd thinks "yes".
The only answer that really makes sense is "no" !!
So:
Make lockd_up only increment nlmsvc_users on success.
Make nfsd handle errors from lockd_up properly.
Make sure lockd_up(0) never fails when lockd is running
so that the 'reclaimer' call to lockd_up doesn't need to
be error checked.
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
### Diffstat output
./fs/lockd/clntlock.c | 2 +-
./fs/lockd/svc.c | 12 +++++-------
./fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c | 16 ++++++++++------
3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff .prev/fs/lockd/clntlock.c ./fs/lockd/clntlock.c
--- .prev/fs/lockd/clntlock.c 2006-07-28 14:53:28.000000000 +1000
+++ ./fs/lockd/clntlock.c 2006-07-28 15:01:38.000000000 +1000
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ reclaimer(void *ptr)
/* This one ensures that our parent doesn't terminate while the
* reclaim is in progress */
lock_kernel();
- lockd_up(0);
+ lockd_up(0); /* note: this cannot fail as lockd is already running */
nlmclnt_prepare_reclaim(host);
/* First, reclaim all locks that have been marked. */
diff .prev/fs/lockd/svc.c ./fs/lockd/svc.c
--- .prev/fs/lockd/svc.c 2006-07-28 15:01:30.000000000 +1000
+++ ./fs/lockd/svc.c 2006-07-28 15:01:38.000000000 +1000
@@ -254,15 +254,11 @@ lockd_up(int proto) /* Maybe add a 'fami
mutex_lock(&nlmsvc_mutex);
/*
- * Unconditionally increment the user count ... this is
- * the number of clients who _want_ a lockd process.
- */
- nlmsvc_users++;
- /*
* Check whether we're already up and running.
*/
if (nlmsvc_pid) {
- error = make_socks(nlmsvc_serv, proto);
+ if (proto)
+ error = make_socks(nlmsvc_serv, proto);
goto out;
}
@@ -270,7 +266,7 @@ lockd_up(int proto) /* Maybe add a 'fami
* Sanity check: if there's no pid,
* we should be the first user ...
*/
- if (nlmsvc_users > 1)
+ if (nlmsvc_users)
printk(KERN_WARNING
"lockd_up: no pid, %d users??\n", nlmsvc_users);
@@ -302,6 +298,8 @@ lockd_up(int proto) /* Maybe add a 'fami
destroy_and_out:
svc_destroy(serv);
out:
+ if (!error)
+ nlmsvc_users++;
mutex_unlock(&nlmsvc_mutex);
return error;
}
diff .prev/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c ./fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c
--- .prev/fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c 2006-07-28 14:53:28.000000000 +1000
+++ ./fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c 2006-07-28 15:01:38.000000000 +1000
@@ -221,18 +221,22 @@ static int nfsd_init_socks(int port)
if (!list_empty(&nfsd_serv->sv_permsocks))
return 0;
- error = svc_makesock(nfsd_serv, IPPROTO_UDP, port);
- if (error < 0)
- return error;
error = lockd_up(IPPROTO_UDP);
+ if (error >= 0) {
+ error = svc_makesock(nfsd_serv, IPPROTO_UDP, port);
+ if (error < 0)
+ lockd_down();
+ }
if (error < 0)
return error;
#ifdef CONFIG_NFSD_TCP
- error = svc_makesock(nfsd_serv, IPPROTO_TCP, port);
- if (error < 0)
- return error;
error = lockd_up(IPPROTO_TCP);
+ if (error >= 0) {
+ error = svc_makesock(nfsd_serv, IPPROTO_TCP, port);
+ if (error < 0)
+ lockd_down();
+ }
if (error < 0)
return error;
#endif
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists