Re: [PATCH v5 03/11] nfsd: simplify foreign-filehandle handling to better match RFC-7862

[Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>]

On 11/19/25 4:38 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>> Extending to match NFS4ERR_BADHANDLE as well explicitly does /not/
>> comply with RFC 7862, as you say above. So the short description is
>> misleading.
> Does:
> 			/*
> 			 * RFC 7862 section 15.2.3 says:
> 			 *  If a server supports the inter-server copy
> 			 *  feature, a PUTFH followed by a SAVEFH MUST
> 			 *  NOT return NFS4ERR_STALE for either
> 			 *  operation.
> 			 * We limit this to when there is a COPY
> 			 * in the COMPOUND, and extend it to
> 			 * also ignore NFS4ERR_BADHANDLE despite the
> 			 * RFC not requiring this.  If the remote
> 			 * server is running a different NFS implementation,
> 			 * NFS4ERR_BADHANDLE is a likely error.
> 			 */
> 
> resolve your concern?

Well the concern was mostly about the mismatch between the intent of the
patch, as stated in the short description, and this comment.

But, without elaborating, the RFC does not place any mandate on
NFS4ERR_BADHANDLE. It's hard to say whether ignoring that status code is
going to be consequential. I'll have to study up.


-- 
Chuck Lever