Re: nfsd bugfixes

[Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>]

(CC: trimmed - as Bruce says: separate discussion)

On Monday November 12, bfields@fieldses.org wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:08:42AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> > Calling nfsd_setuser an extra time does open us up for a very tiny
> > possibility of an ENOMEM at an awkward time.
> 
> Hm.  Could you give an example of possible consequences?

Just that you could get an ENOMEM in the middle of a NFSv4 COMPOUND.
I guess that should result in NFSERR_RESOURCE and we just hope the
client is able to cope and resend the remainder of the compound.
Though looking at the code, ENOMEM becomes nfserr_dropit... does that
mean the we would drop the whole request and the client would need to
resend, possibly duplicating non-idempotent portions?

Mainly, it just feels unclean.

> 
> (Though note this is somewhat of a separate discussion, since this
> particular patch doesn't add a call to nfsd_setuser().)

Hmm, you are right, we already call nfsd_setuser in both paths, you we
just adding the check for privileged port - doh ;-)

NeilBrown