CIFS: Fix rsize usage for sync read
If a server changes maximum buffer size for read requests (rsize) on reconnect we can fail on repeating with a big size buffer on -EAGAIN error in cifs_read. Fix this by checking rsize all the time before repeating requests. Reviewed-by: Shirish Pargaonkar <spargaonkar@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Pavel Shilovsky <pshilovsky@samba.org> Signed-off-by: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
25f402598d
commit
e374d90f8a
@ -3148,18 +3148,19 @@ cifs_read(struct file *file, char *read_data, size_t read_size, loff_t *offset)
|
||||
|
||||
for (total_read = 0, cur_offset = read_data; read_size > total_read;
|
||||
total_read += bytes_read, cur_offset += bytes_read) {
|
||||
current_read_size = min_t(uint, read_size - total_read, rsize);
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* For windows me and 9x we do not want to request more than it
|
||||
* negotiated since it will refuse the read then.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if ((tcon->ses) && !(tcon->ses->capabilities &
|
||||
do {
|
||||
current_read_size = min_t(uint, read_size - total_read,
|
||||
rsize);
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* For windows me and 9x we do not want to request more
|
||||
* than it negotiated since it will refuse the read
|
||||
* then.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if ((tcon->ses) && !(tcon->ses->capabilities &
|
||||
tcon->ses->server->vals->cap_large_files)) {
|
||||
current_read_size = min_t(uint, current_read_size,
|
||||
CIFSMaxBufSize);
|
||||
}
|
||||
rc = -EAGAIN;
|
||||
while (rc == -EAGAIN) {
|
||||
current_read_size = min_t(uint,
|
||||
current_read_size, CIFSMaxBufSize);
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (open_file->invalidHandle) {
|
||||
rc = cifs_reopen_file(open_file, true);
|
||||
if (rc != 0)
|
||||
@ -3172,7 +3173,8 @@ cifs_read(struct file *file, char *read_data, size_t read_size, loff_t *offset)
|
||||
rc = server->ops->sync_read(xid, open_file, &io_parms,
|
||||
&bytes_read, &cur_offset,
|
||||
&buf_type);
|
||||
}
|
||||
} while (rc == -EAGAIN);
|
||||
|
||||
if (rc || (bytes_read == 0)) {
|
||||
if (total_read) {
|
||||
break;
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user