You are misreading what I wrote. Your test should indeed give rise to an OPEN_DOWNGRADE (unless there is a delegation involved). The code that was misbehaving and that was fixed by the patch was triggering an OPEN_DOWNGRADE from a stateid that had only been opened for RW. On 6/1/16, 16:31, "linux-nfs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Olga Kornievskaia" <linux-nfs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >I'm failing to think of what can trigger an open_downgrade? >I thought the following example should trigger an open downgrade: > >fd0 = open(foo, RDRW) -- should be open on the wire for "both" >fd1 = open(foo, RDONLY) -- should be open on the wire for "read" >close(fd0) -- should trigger an open_downgrade >read(fd1) >close(fd1) > >However this commit says that it's not allowed by the spec. > >commit cd9288ffaea4359d5cfe2b8d264911506aed26a4 >Author: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Date: Thu Sep 18 11:51:32 2014 -0400 > > NFSv4: Fix another bug in the close/open_downgrade code > > James Drew reports another bug whereby the NFS client is now sending > an OPEN_DOWNGRADE in a situation where it should really have sent a > CLOSE: the client is opening the file for O_RDWR, but then trying to > do a downgrade to O_RDONLY, which is not allowed by the NFSv4 spec. > > Reported-by: James Drews <drews@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/541AD7E5.8020409@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fixes: aee7af356e15 (NFSv4: Fix problems with close in the presence...) > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 2.6.33+ > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >If RDWR to RDONLY isn't allowed then why do we have OPEN_DOWNGRADE at all? >-- >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 > ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��w��� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
