On Apr 13, 2014, at 9:11, Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > After writing data at NFS client, file's access mode is inconsistent > with server. > Because WRITE proceduce changes the S_ISUID and S_ISGID bits, > but client don't get it. > > #touch hello; chmod 06777 hello; stat hello; > File: ‘hello’ > Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 262144 regular > empty file > Device: 24h/36d Inode: 786434 Links: 1 > Access: (6777/-rwsrwsrwx) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 0/ root) > Context: system_u:object_r:nfs_t:s0 > Access: 2014-04-13 21:00:44.996908708 +0800 > Modify: 2014-04-13 21:00:44.996908708 +0800 > Change: 2014-04-13 21:00:45.033908705 +0800 > Birth: - > > #echo 12324 > hello; stat hello; stat /nfstest/hello > File: ‘hello’ > Size: 6 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 262144 regular file > Device: 24h/36d Inode: 786434 Links: 1 > Access: (6777/-rwsrwsrwx) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 0/ root) > ^^^^^ it should be 0777 > Context: system_u:object_r:nfs_t:s0 > Access: 2014-04-13 21:00:44.996908708 +0800 > Modify: 2014-04-13 21:00:45.061908703 +0800 > Change: 2014-04-13 21:00:45.061908703 +0800 > Birth: - > File: ‘/nfstest/hello’ > Size: 6 Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 regular file > Device: 803h/2051d Inode: 786434 Links: 1 > Access: (0777/-rwxrwxrwx) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 0/ root) > ^^^^^ bits on the server > Context: system_u:object_r:default_t:s0 > Access: 2014-04-13 21:00:44.996908708 +0800 > Modify: 2014-04-13 21:00:45.061908703 +0800 > Change: 2014-04-13 21:00:45.061908703 +0800 > Birth: - > > Signed-off-by: Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > index 397be39..f234af7 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > @@ -2819,7 +2819,7 @@ static int _nfs4_server_capabilities(struct > nfs_server *server, struct nfs_fh *f > > 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_MODE|FATTR4_WORD1_TIME_METADATA|FATTR4_WORD1_TIME_MODIFY; > server->cache_consistency_bitmask[2] = 0; > server->acl_bitmask = res.acl_bitmask; > server->fh_expire_type = res.fh_expire_type; > -- > 1.9.0 > Instead of requesting a new attribute on each and every operation just in order to deal with an extremely rare corner case, is there any reason why we can’t just do this by checking should_remove_suid(), clearing the mode bits ourselves, and then marking the attributes for revalidation? _________________________________ Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
