From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FMODE_EXEC or alike?
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:36:56 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1140644216.7879.7.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060222195721.GC28219@fieldses.org>
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 14:57 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 06:32:31PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > Hmm... I don't think you want to overload write deny bits onto
> > FMODE_EXEC. FMODE_EXEC is basically, a read-only mode, so it
> > would mean that you could no longer do something like
> >
> > OPEN(READ|WRITE,DENY_WRITE)
> >
> > which I would assume is one of the more frequent Windoze open modes.
>
> Since exec will never use the above combination, I don't think the
> current proposal mandates any particular semantics in that case.
>
> So I'm assuming that we could choose the semantics to fit nfsd's
> purposes. Am I missing anything?
Yes. I'm saying that your mapping of the NFSv4 DENY_WRITE share mode
into FMODE_EXEC will _only_ work for the specific combination
OPEN(READ,DENY_WRITE).
Basically, your proposal makes heavy assumptions on what clients will
want to use the share modes for, and will misbehave badly for any client
that breaks those assumptions.
Cheers,
Trond
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-22 21:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-20 22:19 FMODE_EXEC or alike? Oleg Drokin
2006-02-21 5:51 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-21 11:30 ` Oleg Drokin
2006-02-21 11:36 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-21 11:56 ` Oleg Drokin
2006-02-21 13:59 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-02-21 14:15 ` Antonio Vargas
2006-02-21 14:21 ` Oleg Drokin
2006-02-22 9:57 ` Antonio Vargas
2006-02-21 14:42 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-02-21 23:26 ` J. Bruce Fields
2006-02-21 23:32 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-02-22 19:57 ` J. Bruce Fields
2006-02-22 21:36 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2006-02-22 22:04 ` J. Bruce Fields
2006-02-22 22:17 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-02-22 23:31 ` J. Bruce Fields
2006-02-21 10:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-02-22 1:03 ` Chris Wedgwood
2006-02-22 8:59 ` Steven Whitehouse
2006-02-22 21:42 ` J. Bruce Fields
2006-02-22 22:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1140644216.7879.7.camel@lade.trondhjem.org \
--to=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=green@linuxhacker.ru \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).