On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:52:24 -0500 Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:49:28 -0400 > chas williams - CONTRACTOR <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm not looking at the code at the moment, but don't we get the serial > > > of the offending packet in the BUSY we receive? Therefore, we should be > > > able to ignore a BUSY packet if it does not reference the most recent > > > serial we've sent. > > > > Even if we did, I think that a race between two new connections would > > both have the same starting serial number (even if the starting serial > > numbers were random, it would just make the problem more unlikely but > > still possible). > > We have the CID and epoch, too. I meant all of that in the context of > the relevant connection, which we can identify. I don't think the client is sent back its own epoch, but rather the epoch for the server. And I still believe a connection id collision is possible, but yes, very unlikely. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
