linux-kernel - Re: [NFS] [PATCH 008 of 11] knfsd: Prepare knfsd for support of rsize/wsize of up to 1MB, over TCP.

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, 3 Oct 2006 11:59:20 +1000
From:	Greg Banks <gnb@....com>
To:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [NFS] [PATCH 008 of 11] knfsd: Prepare knfsd for support of rsize/wsize of up to 1MB, over TCP.

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:36:32AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday September 25, bfields@...ldses.org wrote:
> > 
> > We're reporting svc_max_payload(rqstp) as the server's maximum
> > read/write block size:
> 
> Yes.  So I'm going to change the number returned by
> svc_max_payload(rqstp) to mean the maximum read/write block size.
> i.e. when a service is created, the number passed isn't the maximum
> packet size, but is the maximum payload size.

I'm confused.  Last time I looked at the code that was
exactly what the semantics were?

> The assumption is that all of the request that is not payload will fit
> into one page, and all of the reply that is not payload will also fit
> into one page (though a different page).

This is a pretty good assumption for v3.

> It means that RPC services that have lots of non-payload data combined
> with payload data won't work, but making sunrpc code completely
> general when there are only two users is just too painful.
> 
> The only real problem is that NFSv4 can have arbitrarily large
> non-payload data, and arbitrarily many payloads.  But I guess any
> client that trying to send two full-sized payloads in the one request
> is asking for trouble (I don't suppose the RPC spells this out at
> all?).

Bruce and I briefly discussed this when I dropped into CITI the other
week.  The conclusion was that this is a non-issue in the short term
because all the clients do a single READ or WRITE per call.  In the
long term I hope to rewrite some parts of that code to do away with
one of the memcpy()s in the WRITE path, and handling multiple WRITEs
for v4 would be a natural extension of that.

Greg.
-- 
Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group.
I don't speak for SGI.
-
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/