On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 12:29:30PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Sep 1, 2009, at 12:09 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> And, sure, that'd be OK with me, and would probably be better than >> adding another exception, so I'm OK with skipping #3. (We definitely >> shouldn't omit #2, though.) > > Seems straightforward enough, but... Why are we doing this again? It > still seems like non-standard behavior. Are we simply attempting to > avoid the case where folks would get the "nobody" behavior unexpectedly > because of a mountd bug, or is there more to it? That's all there is to it. As I said: >>>>>> 2. In the absence of sec=, we should probably *not* choose >>>>>> AUTH_NULL. (All mountd's before 1.1.3 list AUTH_NULL first on >>>>>> the returned list, so users with older servers may wonder why a >>>>>> client upgrade is making files they create suddenly be owned by >>>>>> nobody.) http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=125089022306281&w=2 > I'm just thinking of what the documenting comment might say, and perhaps > some explanation added to nfs(5). "As a special case, to work around bugs in some older servers, the client will never automatically negotiate auth_null; if auth_null is desired, an explicit "sec=null" on the commandline is required." Or something like that. --b. -- 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
