| Message ID | 1403000048-31245-1-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:14:08AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > AFAICT, the only way to hit this error is to pass this function a bogus > "who" value. In that case, we probably don't want to return -1 as that > could get sent back to the client. Turn this into nfserr_serverfault, > which is a more appropriate error for a server bug like this. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@primarydata.com> Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:14:08AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > AFAICT, the only way to hit this error is to pass this function a bogus > "who" value. In that case, we probably don't want to return -1 as that > could get sent back to the client. Turn this into nfserr_serverfault, > which is a more appropriate error for a server bug like this. I don't really care since there shouldn't be any way to hit this, but OK, applying for 3.17. --b. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@primarydata.com> > --- > fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c > index d714156a19fd..b0cf00d3ee7d 100644 > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c > @@ -935,5 +935,5 @@ __be32 nfs4_acl_write_who(struct xdr_stream *xdr, int who) > return 0; > } > WARN_ON_ONCE(1); > - return -1; > + return nfserr_serverfault; > } > -- > 1.9.3 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:42:04 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:14:08AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > AFAICT, the only way to hit this error is to pass this function a bogus > > "who" value. In that case, we probably don't want to return -1 as that > > could get sent back to the client. Turn this into nfserr_serverfault, > > which is a more appropriate error for a server bug like this. > > I don't really care since there shouldn't be any way to hit this, but > OK, applying for 3.17. > > --b. > Thanks. Yeah, it's pretty unlikely... I saw a sparse warning from that and silencing it was the main impetus for the patch. I guess we can also call it "future proofing". In the event that some other bug ends causing this function to get passed a bogus "who" arg, then I think we'll stand a better chance of noticing it with this change. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@primarydata.com> > > --- > > fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c > > index d714156a19fd..b0cf00d3ee7d 100644 > > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c > > @@ -935,5 +935,5 @@ __be32 nfs4_acl_write_who(struct xdr_stream *xdr, int who) > > return 0; > > } > > WARN_ON_ONCE(1); > > - return -1; > > + return nfserr_serverfault; > > } > > -- > > 1.9.3 > >
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c index d714156a19fd..b0cf00d3ee7d 100644 --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c @@ -935,5 +935,5 @@ __be32 nfs4_acl_write_who(struct xdr_stream *xdr, int who) return 0; } WARN_ON_ONCE(1); - return -1; + return nfserr_serverfault; }
AFAICT, the only way to hit this error is to pass this function a bogus "who" value. In that case, we probably don't want to return -1 as that could get sent back to the client. Turn this into nfserr_serverfault, which is a more appropriate error for a server bug like this. Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@primarydata.com> --- fs/nfsd/nfs4acl.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)