From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: reconnect_path() breaks NFS server causing occasional EACCES Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:24:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20080409162446.GD32475@fieldses.org> References: <20080404102449.GA10209@janus> <20080407184346.GF3305@fieldses.org> <20080409133639.GA9588@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Frank van Maarseveen , Linux NFS mailing list , Neil Brown To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:60533 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758617AbYDIQYu (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:24:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080409133639.GA9588@lst.de> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 03:36:39PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 02:43:46PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > Anyone who depends on the "x" bit to control access to objects in an > > nfs-exported filesystem is already in trouble. We could do so for > > directories (at the expense of non-posix-like behavior such as what > > you've seen), but we probably can't for files. So I'm inclined to think > > this is the right thing to do. > > > > The "DON'T USE THIS FUNCTION EVER, thanks." suggests we should at least > > consult the person who added that comment (cc'd) before adding a call to > > lookup_one_noperm(). (And if we decide to do this, we should make a > > note of this in that comment.) > > That function really shouldn't be used and we should obey the x bit. > And yes, due to NFSs staleless file handles this will lead to non-posix > behaviour which is expected. The same will happen with other nfs > servers aswell. Any references for that behavior? Well, we can do some tests, I guess. --b.