linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] nfsd: set missing after_change as before

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

Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:15:43 +1000
From:   "NeilBrown" <neilb@...e.de>
To:     "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        "Olga Kornievskaia" <kolga@...app.com>,
        "Dai Ngo" <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>, "Tom Talpey" <tom@...pey.com>,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] nfsd: set missing after_change as before_change + 1

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, Jeff Layton wrote:
> In the event that we can't fetch post_op_attr attributes, we still need
> to set a value for the after_change. The operation has already happened,
> so we're not able to return an error at that point, but we do want to
> ensure that the client knows that its cache should be invalidated.
> 
> If we weren't able to fetch post-op attrs, then just set the
> after_change to before_change + 1. The atomic flag should already be
> clear in this case.
> 
> Suggested-by: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
> ---
>  fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> index 3f6710c9c5c9..f0f318e78630 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ set_change_info(struct nfsd4_change_info *cinfo, struct svc_fh *fhp)
>  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!fhp->fh_pre_saved))
>  		cinfo->before_change = 0;
>  	if (!fhp->fh_post_saved)
> -		cinfo->after_change = 0;
> +		cinfo->after_change = cinfo->before_change + 1;
>  }

Thanks for this Jeff.
Only problem is that the comment above this code is now even more wrong
than it was before :-)

I cannot convincingly argue that having the "+1" is better than not (as
Chuck wondered about), but I think "0" is completely arbitrary, while
->before_change+1 is the sort of value we might reasonably expect.

Thanks,
NeilBrown


>  
>  static __be32
> 
> ---
> base-commit: 97a5d0146ef443df148805a4e9c3c44111f14ab1
> change-id: 20230724-bz2223560-5ed6bc3a5db7
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
> 
>