Re: [PATCH 13/17] NFS: Client implementation of Labeled-NFS

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 13:39 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> 
> On 08/05/13 12:43, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 12:39 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01/05/13 15:03, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> >>>> @@ -2409,10 +2468,26 @@ static int _nfs4_server_capabilities(struct nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *f
> >>>>>  			server->caps |= NFS_CAP_CTIME;
> >>>>>  		if (res.attr_bitmask[1] & FATTR4_WORD1_TIME_MODIFY)
> >>>>>  			server->caps |= NFS_CAP_MTIME;
> >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NFS_V4_SECURITY_LABEL
> >>>>> +		if (res.attr_bitmask[2] & FATTR4_WORD2_SECURITY_LABEL)
> >>>>> +			server->caps |= NFS_CAP_SECURITY_LABEL;
> >>>>> +#endif
> >>>>> +		memcpy(server->attr_bitmask_nl, res.attr_bitmask, 
> >>>>> +				sizeof(server->attr_bitmask));
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +		if (server->caps & NFS_CAP_SECURITY_LABEL)
> >>>>> +			server->attr_bitmask_nl[2] &= ~FATTR4_WORD2_SECURITY_LABEL;
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  		memcpy(server->cache_consistency_bitmask, res.attr_bitmask, sizeof(server->cache_consistency_bitmask));
> >>>>>  		server->cache_consistency_bitmask[0] &= FATTR4_WORD0_CHANGE|FATTR4_WORD0_SIZE;
> >>>>> -		server->cache_consistency_bitmask[1] &= FATTR4_WORD1_TIME_METADATA|FATTR4_WORD1_TIME_MODIFY;
> >>>>> +		server->cache_consistency_bitmask[1] &= FATTR4_WORD1_TIME_METADATA |
> >>>>> +							FATTR4_WORD1_TIME_MODIFY;
> >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NFS_V4_SECURITY_LABEL
> >>>>> +		server->cache_consistency_bitmask[2] &= FATTR4_WORD2_SECURITY_LABEL;
> >>> Why? How is the security label relevant to cache consistency?
> >> Its used to the set label bit in the GETATTR that goes out with ACCESS compound.
> > 
> > The GETATTR that goes out with ACCESS is only there in order to get the
> > change attribute so that we know when to invalidate the access cache. It
> > is _only_ for cache consistency.
> > 
> > Why do we need to fetch the label too?
> > 
> I think I answer this in the other thread but in short 
> access updates the inode and so it appears the goal 
> is to synchronize inode updates and label updates.

Those are not inode updates.


-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer

NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux