On Mon, May 09 2016, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:18:22AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>
>> Not puppies, just kittens.
>>
>> If you don't provide these functions, then exporting with
>> "subtree_check" won't work. That is no great loss except that people
>> might find the failure confusing.
>
> OK, a client sends you a RENAME. With fhandles of both parents +
> old and new names in those. Your task, should you choose to accept it, is
> to figure out whether we should fail with nfserr_inval due to an attempt
> to make a directory its own descendent. Without being able to locate all
> ancestors of a directory.
You are right, sorry. I was thinking that get_parent() was for finding
the parent of a non-directory, but it is for directories. It does the
equivalent of lookup(".."). So if you have a ".." link or something
like it, it should be easy. If you don't, it won't be easy at all.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> You are fond of complaining about the checks that could've been left
> to server not getting skipped on the client. Now you want to skip them on
> the server side as well? Can't have it both ways...
>
> Seriously, it really doesn't work. You can't do directory
> modifications without having found the chain of ancestors. No ->get_parent()
> is OK _only_ for something like tmpfs, where we have the full chains of
> ancestors towards root all the time. For UBIFS it's obviously not true.
> Not unless you suck the entire directory tree in memory at the mount time.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
