Re: #255931 NFS fh_verify causes lost output

[Olaf Kirch <okir@suse.de>]

Hi Neil,

> Originally, the check here was "does anyone other that root have x
> permission" and "it is exported root_squash".
> If the first was "no" and the second was "yes", then access was
> denied.

But that is an access control check; and a failed access control
check should return EACCES.

Probably the worst aspect of returning ESTALE is that this information
is cached persistently by the client; it doesn't time out. So it will
never clear up, even if the directory is changed to mode 777 in the
meanwhile.

>  2/ change the error to EPERM, which is wrong because filehandle
>     lookup itself shouldn't return EPERM, and if the failure is

Then we shouldn't mix permission checks with file handle lookup.
As far as I understand, the only reason this permission check is
done inside the file handle lookup is because a file handle may
potentially map to more than on dentry chain?

For what it's worth, I can live with both solution 1 and solution 2.
I don't believe in 4.

Olaf
-- 
Olaf Kirch     |  The Hardware Gods hate me.
okir@suse.de   |
---------------+ 


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs