Re: [PATCH] nfsd: wrong index used in inner loop

[Mi Jinlong]

J. Bruce Fields:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 03:42:30PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 22:32:26 +0100
>> roel <roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Index i was already used in the outer loop
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c |    4 ++--
>>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Not 100% sure this one is needed but it looks suspicious.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c
>>> index 1275b86..615f0a9 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4xdr.c
>>> @@ -1142,7 +1142,7 @@ nfsd4_decode_create_session(struct nfsd4_compoundargs *argp,
>>>  
>>>  	u32 dummy;
>>>  	char *machine_name;
>>> -	int i;
>>> +	int i, j;
>>>  	int nr_secflavs;
>>>  
>>>  	READ_BUF(16);
>>> @@ -1215,7 +1215,7 @@ nfsd4_decode_create_session(struct nfsd4_compoundargs *argp,
>>>  			READ_BUF(4);
>>>  			READ32(dummy);
>>>  			READ_BUF(dummy * 4);
>>> -			for (i = 0; i < dummy; ++i)
>>> +			for (j = 0; j < dummy; ++j)
>>>  				READ32(dummy);
>>>  			break;
>>>  		case RPC_AUTH_GSS:
>> ooh, big bug.
>>
>> I wonder why it was not previously detected at runtime.  Perhaps
>> nr_secflavs is always 1.
> 
> Yeah, no client uses this calback security information yet.
> 
> Mi Jinlong, do you think this is something we could have caught with
> another pynfs test?

  Yes, we must test it.

  After testing, the following test case is OK.

--
thanks,
Mi Jinlong