picnoir
/
Systemd
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

bus-proxy: fix error code for invalid reply-slots 

The kernel may return EBADSLT if a reply slot cannot be found. Make sure
to ignore it just like we ignore EPERM (the comment still applies).
This commit is contained in:
David Herrmann 2015-08-06 11:42:40 +02:00
parent a6b0951868
commit 2c960818c8
1 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
src/bus-proxyd/proxy.c
View File

@ -770,19 +770,19 @@ static int proxy_process_destination_to_local(Proxy *p) {
return r;
/* If the peer tries to send a reply and it is
* rejected with EPERM by the kernel, we ignore the
* rejected with EBADSLT by the kernel, we ignore the
* error. This catches cases where the original
* method-call didn't had EXPECT_REPLY set, but the
* proxy-peer still sends a reply. This is allowed in
* dbus1, but not in kdbus. We don't want to track
* reply-windows in the proxy, so we simply ignore
* EPERM for all replies. The only downside is, that
* EBADSLT for all replies. The only downside is, that
* callers are no longer notified if their replies are
* dropped. However, this is equivalent to the
* caller's timeout to expire, so this should be
* acceptable. Nobody sane sends replies without a
* matching method-call, so nobody should care. */
if (r == -EPERM && m->reply_cookie > 0)
if ((r == -EPERM || r == -EBADSLT) && m->reply_cookie > 0)
return 1;
/* Return the error to the client, if we can */
@ -863,8 +863,8 @@ static int proxy_process_local_to_destination(Proxy *p) {
if (r == -EREMCHG)
continue;
/* see above why EPERM is ignored for replies */
if (r == -EPERM && m->reply_cookie > 0)
/* see above why EBADSLT is ignored for replies */
if ((r == -EPERM || r == -EBADSLT) && m->reply_cookie > 0)
return 1;
synthetic_reply_method_errnof(m, r, "Failed to forward message we got from local: %m");