* [PATCH] nfsd: Correct read access checking
@ 2013-03-03 9:02 Yanchuan Nian
2013-03-05 21:10 ` J. Bruce Fields
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Yanchuan Nian @ 2013-03-03 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bfields; +Cc: linux-nfs
NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE should not be tested in access_permit_read() for this
function just tests read permission, so remove it.
Signed-off-by: Yanchuan Nian <ycnian@gmail.com>
---
fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
index 16d39c6..75c873d 100644
--- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
@@ -3322,8 +3322,7 @@ static inline int
access_permit_read(struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp)
{
return test_access(NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ, stp) ||
- test_access(NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_BOTH, stp) ||
- test_access(NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE, stp);
+ test_access(NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_BOTH, stp);
}
static inline int
--
1.8.0.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] nfsd: Correct read access checking
2013-03-03 9:02 [PATCH] nfsd: Correct read access checking Yanchuan Nian
@ 2013-03-05 21:10 ` J. Bruce Fields
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2013-03-05 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yanchuan Nian; +Cc: linux-nfs
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 05:02:11PM +0800, Yanchuan Nian wrote:
> NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE should not be tested in access_permit_read() for this
> function just tests read permission, so remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yanchuan Nian <ycnian@gmail.com>
> ---
> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> index 16d39c6..75c873d 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> @@ -3322,8 +3322,7 @@ static inline int
> access_permit_read(struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp)
> {
> return test_access(NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ, stp) ||
> - test_access(NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_BOTH, stp) ||
> - test_access(NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE, stp);
> + test_access(NFS4_SHARE_ACCESS_BOTH, stp);
> }
This was introduced by a patch from 2005:
[PATCH] nfsd4: allow read on open for write
The rfc recommends allowing read using stateid's from opens that only
requested write access, as clients may in some cases be unable to write
without doing reads.
So I think it's correct.
That said, I don't understand why we still have this function at all:
can it ever return anything other than true?
--b.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-03-05 21:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-03-03 9:02 [PATCH] nfsd: Correct read access checking Yanchuan Nian
2013-03-05 21:10 ` J. Bruce Fields
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).