From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Attach/Auth
Message-ID: <20020827083520.W29921@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <ba09599587edb05f7b18e303b3149577@plan9.bell-labs.com> <20020827070622.V29921@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20020827070622.V29921@cackle.proxima.alt.za>; from Lucio De Re on Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 07:06:23AM +0200
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:35:21 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e18e9b1c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 07:06:23AM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
>
> which is followed by a puzzling Tattach exchange:
>
> 	<-4- Tattach tag 13 fid 349 afid 333 uname lucio aname
> 	-4-> Rerror tag 13 ename unknown fid
>
> I assume the "unknown fid" comes from srv() which I don't quite
> understand.
>
The following code in /sys/src/lib9p/srv.c is suspicious:

    case Tauth:
	if((r->fid = allocfid(srv->fpool, r->ifcall.fid)) == nil){
		respond(r, Edupfid);
		break;
	}
	r->afid = nil;
	if(r->ifcall.afid != NOFID && (r->afid = allocfid(srv->fpool, r->ifcall.fid)) == nil){
		respond(r, Eunknownfid);
		break;
	}

The second allocfid() seems to work a lot better if replaced by:

	lookupfid(srv->fpool, r->ifcall.afid)

The Tattach exchange now looks like:

	<-4- Tattach tag 11 fid 324 afid 339 uname lucio aname
	-4-> Rattach tag 11 qid (0000000000000000 0 d)

which seems a little healthier except for the Qid value, which
repeats the value that was assigned to the auth file.

++L