sunrpc vs 64 bit

sunrpc vs 64 bit

[Roland McGrath]

Does sunrpc work on 64-bit platforms right now?  PR libc/2226 cites a
problem with the use of u_long all over the sunrpc code where it ought
to be uint32_t.  It looks to me like this is probably in fact a problem,
but I don't have a 64-bit machine to test it out on at the moment.

Re: sunrpc vs 64 bit

[Thorsten Kukuk]

On Wed, Aug 28, Roland McGrath wrote:

> Does sunrpc work on 64-bit platforms right now?  PR libc/2226 cites a

Yes, it works for a very long time without problems.

> problem with the use of u_long all over the sunrpc code where it ought
> to be uint32_t.  It looks to me like this is probably in fact a problem,
> but I don't have a 64-bit machine to test it out on at the moment.

The u_long is no problem as long as you don't store values bigger
than UINT_MAX in it.

I think the source of the problem for the bugreport must be somewhere
else. If the NFS RPC packets are really incompatible, none of our
Alphas should be able to communicte with a 32bit NFS server. But it
works.

  Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Kukuk       http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/        kukuk@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG        Deutschherrnstr. 15-19        D-90429 Nuernberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------    
Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE  2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B

Re: sunrpc vs 64 bit

[Ulrich Drepper]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Roland McGrath wrote:
> Does sunrpc work on 64-bit platforms right now?  PR libc/2226 cites a
> problem with the use of u_long all over the sunrpc code where it ought
> to be uint32_t.  It looks to me like this is probably in fact a problem,
> but I don't have a 64-bit machine to test it out on at the moment.

I think this would break the ABI.  In which case it's a no-go.

- -- 
- ---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE9bJWR2ijCOnn/RHQRAuZeAKCyQVk+GkZwfsWTxuauG6Ak+daBkACfeAbm
1yyu8ciY5Ku0rY/m7SUUxqk=
=MUXI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: sunrpc vs 64 bit

[Ulrich Drepper]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
>
> I think the source of the problem for the bugreport must be somewhere
> else. If the NFS RPC packets are really incompatible, none of our
> Alphas should be able to communicte with a 32bit NFS server. But it
> works.

I don't think this is the problem described.  tcpdump probably uses the 
RPC functions to read the NFS data and somewhere the tcpdump code 
relieas on the overflow.

- -- 
- ---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE9bJX42ijCOnn/RHQRAof7AJ43pyH0N4dUe1SdLyHUh/6mTnG3dQCgxtm+
PlyBS1L4mGQXklQG9VTI5fE=
=YQWW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----