On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:20:09 +0000
"Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> AFAICS from draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-20.txt, the ‘sec_label’ attribute has Id == 80.
>
> Shouldn’t that mean that FATTR4_WORD2_SECURITY_LABEL should take the value (1 << (80-64))?
>
> i.e.
>
> #define FATTR4_WORD2_SECURITY_LABEL (1UL << 16)
>
> instead of the current value of (1UL << 17)…
>
> Trond
>
Yeah, that does look wrong. Well spotted!
Just to sanity check, the mdsthreshold bit is listed as bit 68 in
RFC5661:
#define FATTR4_WORD2_MDSTHRESHOLD (1UL << 4)
...so if we assume that that's correct, then
FATTR4_WORD2_SECURITY_LABEL is really set to the value for
change_sec_label...
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
