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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no 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 06CD3ECDE20 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:56:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60562085B for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:56:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="UDYiwiFS" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729793AbfIKR4g (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:56:36 -0400 Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:56858 "EHLO userp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729675AbfIKR4f (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:56:35 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x8BHnIdo008474; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:54:17 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=content-type : mime-version : subject : from : in-reply-to : date : cc : content-transfer-encoding : message-id : references : to; s=corp-2019-08-05; bh=AUeQRUUFdHpNLBcc428WLypzGQ/LjLJEnFYlu11VwoU=; b=UDYiwiFSkQwdICVVLQDO8Gz8JGcZ6+v+5VNE/72zbZwrOqBFiImsxCv+rBycXZoznlHD kmE9oDTRbIcAbvGa3hBcacrQ6WZdwJTWpQykgJvFbu7s9pL6VNbFpIXXgeOMLJHfUyXH mYwklrkyf/h/pWNm7fA+DIQDEr5KQxTm5J3VsOm1UPsqbHpm5TlG35eaLnTuZvia3OCN sKf9zeyFEzyTBBQHf3CQ05jhv3B8yGtoS8fu8XqKNpEq15GQ5oKO63cLT25OE5uc4e13 8qIXrEgbpy8ifVm/GxjFOuOKRM59DIZzw5M+31UZ51GLi7ZFXOFR62bz/+7GOMCT22XZ zA== Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2uw1m93u11-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:54:17 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x8BHrkat088487; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:54:16 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2uxj8924jv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:54:16 +0000 Received: from abhmp0013.oracle.com (abhmp0013.oracle.com [141.146.116.19]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x8BHsFv0022162; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:54:15 GMT Received: from anon-dhcp-153.1015granger.net (/68.61.232.219) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 10:54:15 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Subject: Re: Regression in 5.1.20: Reading long directory fails From: Chuck Lever In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:54:14 -0400 Cc: Jason L Tibbitts III , Bruce Fields , Wolfgang Walter , Linux NFS Mailing List , km@cm4all.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4418877.15LTP4gqqJ@stwm.de> <4198657.JbNDGbLXiX@h2o.as.studentenwerk.mhn.de> <20190906144837.GD17204@fieldses.org> <75F810C6-E99E-40C3-B5E1-34BA2CC42773@oracle.com> <0089DF80-3A1C-4F0B-A200-28FF7CFD0C65@oracle.com> <429B2B1F-FB55-46C5-8BC5-7644CE9A5894@redhat.com> <8D7EFCEB-4AE6-4963-B66F-4A8EEA5EA42A@redhat.com> To: Benjamin Coddington X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9377 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1909110165 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9377 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1909110165 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Sep 11, 2019, at 1:50 PM, Benjamin Coddington = wrote: >=20 > On 11 Sep 2019, at 13:40, Benjamin Coddington wrote: >=20 >> On 11 Sep 2019, at 13:29, Chuck Lever wrote: >>=20 >>>> On Sep 11, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Benjamin Coddington = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 12:39, Chuck Lever wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>>> On Sep 11, 2019, at 12:25 PM, Benjamin Coddington = wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>>> Instead, I think we want to make sure the mic falls squarely into = the tail >>>>>> every time. >>>>>=20 >>>>> I'm not clear how you could do that. The length of the page data = is not >>>>> known to the client before it parses the reply. Are you suggesting = that >>>>> gss_unwrap should do it somehow? >>>>=20 >>>> Is it too niave to always put the mic at the end of the tail? >>>=20 >>> The size of the page content is variable. >>>=20 >>> The only way the MIC will fall into the tail is if the page content = is >>> exactly the largest expected size. When the page content is smaller = than >>> that, the receive logic will place part or all of the MIC in = ->pages. >>=20 >> Ok, right. But what I meant is that xdr_buf_read_netobj() should be = renamed >> and repurposed to be "move the mic from wherever it is to the end of >> xdr_buf's tail". >>=20 >> But now I see what you mean, and I also see that it is already trying = to do >> that.. and we don't want to overlap the copy.. >>=20 >> So, really, we need the tail to be larger than twice the mic.. less = 1. That >> means the fix is probably just increasing rslack for krb5i. >=20 > .. or we can keep the tighter tail space, and if we detect the mic = straddles > the page and tail, we can move the mic into the tail with 2 copies, = first > move the bit in the tail back, then move the bit in the pages. >=20 > Which is preferred, less allocation, or in the rare case this occurs, = doing > copy twice? It sounds like the bug is that the current code does not deal correctly when the MIC crosses the boundary between ->pages and ->tail? I'd like to see that addressed rather than changing rslack. -- Chuck Lever