On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 03:36:39PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 02:43:46PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > Anyone who depends on the "x" bit to control access to objects in an > > nfs-exported filesystem is already in trouble. We could do so for > > directories (at the expense of non-posix-like behavior such as what > > you've seen), but we probably can't for files. So I'm inclined to think > > this is the right thing to do. > > > > The "DON'T USE THIS FUNCTION EVER, thanks." suggests we should at least > > consult the person who added that comment (cc'd) before adding a call to > > lookup_one_noperm(). (And if we decide to do this, we should make a > > note of this in that comment.) > > That function really shouldn't be used and we should obey the x bit. > And yes, due to NFSs staleless file handles this will lead to non-posix > behaviour which is expected. The same will happen with other nfs > servers aswell. The server exhibits non-posix behavior only occasionally and particularly this "randomness" is bad. Random failure once every few days is hard to figure out. Whether we want to be posix compliant with directory handles is a separate issue but I think we should. And we (mostly) are. The proposed patch fixes the linux NFS server behavior to be consistent over reboots and high memory pressure. It's not a security issue so I don't see a downside. -- Frank -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
