On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:20:50AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 11:18:19 -0400
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:48:44AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > @@ -2997,6 +3009,38 @@ static __be32 nfsd4_check_seqid(struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate, struct nfs4
> > > return nfserr_bad_seqid;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static __be32 lookup_clientid(clientid_t *clid,
> > > + struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> > > + struct nfsd_net *nn)
> > > +{
> > > + struct nfs4_client *found;
> > > +
> > > + if (cstate->clp) {
> > > + found = cstate->clp;
> > > + if (!same_clid(&found->cl_clientid, clid))
> > > + return nfserr_stale_clientid;
> >
> > That's new behavior, isn't it?
> >
>
> Yeah, I suppose it is, but it's hard to understand a valid use-case for
> sending multiple ops in a compound with different clientids. Certainly
> no well-behaved client would do that, would it? (Hmm, that might be an
> interesting pynfs test, come to think of it).
We could ask for a clarification in 3530bis if there's not already
something there that clearly forbids this, but I'm not sure if it's even
worth it.
--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
