From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: FMODE_EXEC or alike? Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:36:56 -0500 Message-ID: <1140644216.7879.7.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <20060220221948.GC5733@linuxhacker.ru> <20060220215122.7aa8bbe5.akpm@osdl.org> <1140530396.7864.63.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20060221232607.GS22042@fieldses.org> <1140564751.8088.35.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20060222195721.GC28219@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Drokin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]:37093 "EHLO pat.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751466AbWBVVhT (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:37:19 -0500 To: "J. Bruce Fields" In-Reply-To: <20060222195721.GC28219@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.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