From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECAC2C64EB1 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:52:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12B920850 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:52:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1544107969; bh=oAbc86acppTaZVuUAg/mb9e1RwBuheDrnpjjmcDLD0A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=V57WhyM9Vegpndy+fvZuq0DOPy0R+xTy2Nag6Sa+D881Rbh02zTTCfHFv5dEG1xFw G7MW1Jw1jHUP+/pbipGl1DMUNjK0PCbP/fz82MT+Reu2NOgsZPIkGlbEV8nqvWg1Og UO1KEPrNEWx7gGntC/GGv9phvEsdZoQG7gd/aT1o= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A12B920850 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731147AbeLFOpv (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:45:51 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:50490 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730611AbeLFOpr (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:45:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (5356596B.cm-6-7b.dynamic.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 630B62082B; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:45:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1544107546; bh=oAbc86acppTaZVuUAg/mb9e1RwBuheDrnpjjmcDLD0A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=V9UUELf86M57ZevT3Y9XHjX/u+Tpv0Ka39yx1Cy3YQTaMC8cXV64kqB0JSqrkoPHA P93i/y/baunvN6YPGsPfgSud/V984nfO4Tvyw5t1ib+rA/qOoOt0qmUGzgTYq4z+xO f0DMTH/ngtzDu86mwl4/GWRdW1HXqPbtZjZT0erg= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Ilya Dryomov , Sage Weil , Ben Hutchings Subject: [PATCH 4.9 048/101] libceph: drop len argument of *verify_authorizer_reply() Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 15:38:47 +0100 Message-Id: <20181206143014.329343547@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.19.2 In-Reply-To: <20181206143011.174892052@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20181206143011.174892052@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.65 X-stable: review X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Ilya Dryomov commit 0dde584882ade13dc9708d611fbf69b0ae8a9e48 upstream. The length of the reply is protocol-dependent - for cephx it's ceph_x_authorize_reply. Nothing sensible can be passed from the messenger layer anyway. Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov Reviewed-by: Sage Weil Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- fs/ceph/mds_client.c | 4 ++-- include/linux/ceph/auth.h | 5 ++--- include/linux/ceph/messenger.h | 2 +- net/ceph/auth.c | 4 ++-- net/ceph/auth_x.c | 2 +- net/ceph/messenger.c | 2 +- net/ceph/osd_client.c | 4 ++-- 7 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) --- a/fs/ceph/mds_client.c +++ b/fs/ceph/mds_client.c @@ -3984,13 +3984,13 @@ static struct ceph_auth_handshake *get_a } -static int verify_authorizer_reply(struct ceph_connection *con, int len) +static int verify_authorizer_reply(struct ceph_connection *con) { struct ceph_mds_session *s = con->private; struct ceph_mds_client *mdsc = s->s_mdsc; struct ceph_auth_client *ac = mdsc->fsc->client->monc.auth; - return ceph_auth_verify_authorizer_reply(ac, s->s_auth.authorizer, len); + return ceph_auth_verify_authorizer_reply(ac, s->s_auth.authorizer); } static int invalidate_authorizer(struct ceph_connection *con) --- a/include/linux/ceph/auth.h +++ b/include/linux/ceph/auth.h @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ struct ceph_auth_client_ops { int (*update_authorizer)(struct ceph_auth_client *ac, int peer_type, struct ceph_auth_handshake *auth); int (*verify_authorizer_reply)(struct ceph_auth_client *ac, - struct ceph_authorizer *a, size_t len); + struct ceph_authorizer *a); void (*invalidate_authorizer)(struct ceph_auth_client *ac, int peer_type); @@ -118,8 +118,7 @@ extern int ceph_auth_update_authorizer(s int peer_type, struct ceph_auth_handshake *a); extern int ceph_auth_verify_authorizer_reply(struct ceph_auth_client *ac, - struct ceph_authorizer *a, - size_t len); + struct ceph_authorizer *a); extern void ceph_auth_invalidate_authorizer(struct ceph_auth_client *ac, int peer_type); --- a/include/linux/ceph/messenger.h +++ b/include/linux/ceph/messenger.h @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct ceph_connection_operations { struct ceph_auth_handshake *(*get_authorizer) ( struct ceph_connection *con, int *proto, int force_new); - int (*verify_authorizer_reply) (struct ceph_connection *con, int len); + int (*verify_authorizer_reply) (struct ceph_connection *con); int (*invalidate_authorizer)(struct ceph_connection *con); /* there was some error on the socket (disconnect, whatever) */ --- a/net/ceph/auth.c +++ b/net/ceph/auth.c @@ -315,13 +315,13 @@ int ceph_auth_update_authorizer(struct c EXPORT_SYMBOL(ceph_auth_update_authorizer); int ceph_auth_verify_authorizer_reply(struct ceph_auth_client *ac, - struct ceph_authorizer *a, size_t len) + struct ceph_authorizer *a) { int ret = 0; mutex_lock(&ac->mutex); if (ac->ops && ac->ops->verify_authorizer_reply) - ret = ac->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(ac, a, len); + ret = ac->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(ac, a); mutex_unlock(&ac->mutex); return ret; } --- a/net/ceph/auth_x.c +++ b/net/ceph/auth_x.c @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ static int ceph_x_update_authorizer( } static int ceph_x_verify_authorizer_reply(struct ceph_auth_client *ac, - struct ceph_authorizer *a, size_t len) + struct ceph_authorizer *a) { struct ceph_x_authorizer *au = (void *)a; void *p = au->enc_buf; --- a/net/ceph/messenger.c +++ b/net/ceph/messenger.c @@ -2045,7 +2045,7 @@ static int process_connect(struct ceph_c * should also define ->verify_authorizer_reply(). * See get_connect_authorizer(). */ - ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con, 0); + ret = con->ops->verify_authorizer_reply(con); if (ret < 0) { con->error_msg = "bad authorize reply"; return ret; --- a/net/ceph/osd_client.c +++ b/net/ceph/osd_client.c @@ -4479,13 +4479,13 @@ static struct ceph_auth_handshake *get_a } -static int verify_authorizer_reply(struct ceph_connection *con, int len) +static int verify_authorizer_reply(struct ceph_connection *con) { struct ceph_osd *o = con->private; struct ceph_osd_client *osdc = o->o_osdc; struct ceph_auth_client *ac = osdc->client->monc.auth; - return ceph_auth_verify_authorizer_reply(ac, o->o_auth.authorizer, len); + return ceph_auth_verify_authorizer_reply(ac, o->o_auth.authorizer); } static int invalidate_authorizer(struct ceph_connection *con)