From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-gg0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:63631 "EHLO mail-gg0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754410Ab2GWTqe (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:46:34 -0400 Received: by gglu4 with SMTP id u4so5884605ggl.19 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:46:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Layton To: trond.myklebust@netapp.com Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH] nfs: explicitly reject LOCK_MAND flock() requests Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:46:23 -0400 Message-Id: <1343072783-29737-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: We have no mechanism to emulate LOCK_MAND locks on NFSv4, so explicitly return -EINVAL if someone requests it. Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton --- fs/nfs/file.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c b/fs/nfs/file.c index 61d3670..15f4bbb 100644 --- a/fs/nfs/file.c +++ b/fs/nfs/file.c @@ -834,6 +834,15 @@ static int nfs_flock(struct file *filp, int cmd, struct file_lock *fl) if (!(fl->fl_flags & FL_FLOCK)) return -ENOLCK; + /* + * The NFSv4 protocol doesn't support LOCK_MAND, which is not part of + * any standard. In principle we might be able to support LOCK_MAND + * on NFSv2/3 since NLMv3/4 support DOS share modes, but for now the + * NFS code is not set up for it. + */ + if (fl->fl_type & LOCK_MAND) + return -EINVAL; + if (NFS_SERVER(inode)->flags & NFS_MOUNT_LOCAL_FLOCK) is_local = 1; -- 1.7.10.4