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... -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com -- 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
