On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 02:07:40PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Sep 1, 2009, at 12:38 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > >> 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. > > OK, one more corner case. > > What if the mount doesn't specify "sec=" and the only flavor in the > server's auth list is AUTH_NULL? Seems like we should allow that one. OK.--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
