On 08/05/13 14:31, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 14:27 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: >> >> On 08/05/13 14:07, Myklebust, Trond wrote: >>> 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. >> Ah... OK... but they all end up calling nfs_refresh_inode() with >> the valid label pointer... So there is an effort to keep the >> inode attribute cache updates synchronized with label updates... >> >> So I guess the question is that needed... Is the setting of >> the label in nfs_fhget() and/or _nfs4_do_open() good enough. > > Until someone comes up with a different cache consistency model, then > I'd say yes. The only other case that comes to mind, is when our client > actively changes the label... On the server side as well, correct? What stops a process on the server side from changing the label? I'm thinking that is reason the label was put in all those GETATTRs steved. -- 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
