On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 11:32:08 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
I'm not inclined to pursue it, unless Tom thinks it's worthwhile. Tom,
do you happen to care?
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@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
