On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 10:07 -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: > Steve Dickson wrote: > > > Peter Staubach wrote: > > > >>>> > >>>> 2. Use a radix tree per inode. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Using radix trees actual makes things much simpler... Good idea, imo. > >>> > >> > >> It does seem like a good idea, although just using the uid is not > >> sufficient > >> to identify the correct access cache entry. The group and groups > >> list must > >> also be used. Can the radix tree implementation support this? > > > > We could use (nfsi + uid) as the index... but its not clear what that > > would buys us... And the group and group list were never part of the > > cache in the first place.... is this something you feel needs to be > > added or am I just not understanding.... > > > Yes, I believe that the entire user identification, uid, gid, groups list, > needs to be used to identify the correct cache entry. An easy example of > differing access rights, but with the same uid, is an application which is > setgid. > > I believe that the "key" to the cache entry should be the entire user > identification that the NFS server sees and uses when calculating access > rights. Using the uid as part of a hash key is okay and probably a good > idea, but I don't think that the uid is sufficient to completely identify > a specific cache entry. > > Given this, then I suspect that the current access cache is broken... No it is not: it uses the full RPC cred as the index. Cheers, Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
