linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nfs:Fix error checking in the function nfs4_proc

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:59:08 -0500
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>
To:	Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>
Cc:	Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs:Fix error checking in the function nfs4_proc_setattr

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@...il.com> wrote:
> This fixes error checking in the function
> nfs4_proc_setattr to properly check and
> return a error code if the call to the
> function pnfs_commit_and_return_layout
> has failed by returning a error code
> as we cannot continue in the function
> nfs4_proc_settattr after this error
> code has been returned by the function,
> pnfs_commit_and_return.

Why not? It really is just advisory... On those architectures that
require it, the pNFS server still has a responsibility to recall any
outstanding layouts anyway when it receives a SETATTR call. The
pnfs_commit_and_return here should mainly be an optimisation to avoid
an unnecessary recall from the server, but we don't need to rely on
it.

Cheers
  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/