Re: [PATCH 1/3] NFSv4: Ensure we do not reuse open owner names

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Apr 23, 2012, at 5:32 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:

> On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 16:57 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 16:44 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>> Hi-
>>>> I wish you had told me you were going to fix this too.  I've been testing a fix for this for a couple weeks.  Was going to post this afternoon.  Shall I toss mine?
>>> I was hitting that BAD_SEQID storm during testing of the other open
>>> fixes last week.
>> Fair enough, but I announced I had a fix in my April 15 status report.  Oh well.
>> So, I decided that a timestamp would leak information about the client, so I'm using a simple counter instead.  Would you consider that for your patch?
> How would a timestamp leak useful information? The server and anyone
> monitoring the NFS traffic already knows at what time the open owner was
> created to within a few milliseconds.

It leaks the exact time as the client sees it.  This is why time-based UUIDs are no longer considered safe.

But also, is it possible that a state_owner could be destroyed and created so quickly on a system with inadequate timestamp resolution, such that the new owner ID would not actually be different than the previous one?

Chuck Lever

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite Info]    [Yosemite Photos]    [POF Sucks]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

Add to Google Powered by Linux