From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [RFC v3 36/45] NFSv4: Fix GETATTR bitmap verification Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:24:28 -0400 Message-ID: References: <8d601ee8babe5239b7926542c713c58502b15e35.1429868795.git.agruenba@redhat.com> <20150528203332.GD31663@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux FS-devel Mailing List , Linux NFS Mailing List To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_Gr=C3=BCnbacher?= Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Andreas Gr=C3=BCnbacher wrote: > 2015-05-28 23:55 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust : >>> We already do this kind of check with the existing code. What's wro= ng with it? >> >> Actually, you're right, we don't check for the previous word, howeve= r >> fixing that is a question of adding 2 extra checks in >> decode_getfattr_attrs(), one in decode_getfattr_statfs(), and one in >> decode_fsinfo(). >> >> It shouldn't require a rewrite of the entire nfs4xdr.c. > > I would actually prefer either verifying the reply bitmap against the > request bitmap, > or checking the bitmap first as this patch does --- the current > approach of knocking > individual bits over and checking if any "before" bits have been miss= ed isn't > exactly what I would take as a textbook example. =2E..and I'd prefer that we don't keep rewriting code that works. Screw the textbooks... Trond -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html