READ/RENEW loop bug

[Steven Brudenell]

Ping again (because my client machine crashed again). Did any change
ever get committed for this?

~Steve

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Steven Brudenell
<steven.brudenell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> Just wondering if there has been any progress on this issue as yet.  I
> don't think I've gone two days without rebooting my client machine in
> a while. :(
>
> ~Steve
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:47 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields at fieldses.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 06:26:12PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> The handling of current_fileid appears to be buggy. There is no
>>> protection against an overflow situation, so current_fileid == 0 is not
>>> excluded. That would definitely give rise to "interesting" consequences.
>>
>> Thanks to the double meaning of si_fileid == 0 as "this is for a
>> delegation"--yes.
>>
>>> I'm not sure about whether or not overflows of current_ownerid and
>>> current_delegid are as worrisome, but there appears to be no guarantee
>>> against collisions...
>>
>> Yeah.
>>
>> Maybe we should make the opaque part out of a boot time and a single
>> 64-bit counter.  I don't see why we need the separate fileid and
>> stateownerid.
>>
>> --b.
>> _______________________________________________
>> NFSv4 mailing list
>> NFSv4 at linux-nfs.org
>> http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>>
>