On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 10:45:47PM +0800, Kinglong Mee wrote: > Acorrding to Matthieu Herrb's test cases, a new created file will > get a bad mode as 0666 (expected 0644) after commit dff25ddb4808 > "nfs: add support for the umask attribute". > > It is caused by missing check of FATTR4_WORD2_MODE_UMASK > in nfs4_exclusive_attrset. I don't understand: > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > index 6dcbc5d..a3e9ef1 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > @@ -2697,7 +2697,8 @@ static inline void nfs4_exclusive_attrset(struct nfs4_opendata *opendata, > sattr->ia_valid |= ATTR_MTIME; > > /* Except MODE, it seems harmless of setting twice. */ > - if ((attrset[1] & FATTR4_WORD1_MODE)) > + if ((attrset[1] & FATTR4_WORD1_MODE) || > + (attrset[2] & FATTR4_WORD2_MODE_UMASK)) > sattr->ia_valid &= ~ATTR_MODE; If I'm understanding this function correctly, attrset is the set of attributes which the server tells us were used to store the verifier. But mode_umask would never be a sensible place to store the verifier, so if the server's response really says that then something's wrong. We should probably look at a network trace. --b. > > if (attrset[2] & FATTR4_WORD2_SECURITY_LABEL) > -- > 2.9.3 > > -- > 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 -- 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
