From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56542 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751028AbdFAA2B (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2017 20:28:01 -0400 From: NeilBrown To: Steve Dickson , Linux NFS Mailing list Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 10:27:53 +1000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mount.nfs: v4 mounts should fail when -o flag is used. In-Reply-To: <10eb706b-2f8b-24ad-d572-eb38abdb331d@RedHat.com> References: <20170519222510.31205-1-steved@redhat.com> <87inktk2yg.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <5a0d2640-ec93-279b-9113-228994283923@RedHat.com> <877f18jsx5.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <10eb706b-2f8b-24ad-d572-eb38abdb331d@RedHat.com> Message-ID: <87h900eely.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, May 31 2017, Steve Dickson wrote: > Sorry for the delayed response... that damn=20 > flux capacitor broke... again! ;-)=20 That's what you get for buying it on e-bay?? >>=20 >> According to the extra comments you have added for the modes: >>=20 >>>>> + V_GENERAL, /* single digit =3D> 4 */ >>>>> + V_SPECIFIC, /* single digit < 4 or decimal included */ >>=20 >> And it seems to me that "v4" should be V_GENERAL, not V_SPECIFIC. >> So I think the current code is correct. > Personally I don't see a needed for V_GENERAL v_mode type > I guess it has to do with the specifying minor version or not > but if any thing is specified on the command line or=20 > nfsmount.conf then it is V_SPECIFIC... IMHO. Maybe V_GENERAL should be V_MAJOR or V_SPECIFIC_MAJOR. The v4 code assumes that if V_SPECIFIC is set, then the version option provided to the mount command can be passed unchanged to the kernel. So it sometimes means V_NO_NEGOTIATE. >> I haven't even compile-tested of course :-) > I have and it does compile and work... Would you > mind reposting the patch in the proper format? > You can added Tested-by: Steve Dickson Done. > > Note: The second patch should probably use V_GENERAL as well. Yes, definitely. Thanks, NeilBrown --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEG8Yp69OQ2HB7X0l6Oeye3VZigbkFAlkvX4sACgkQOeye3VZi gblPrw/+JWVLaq575kJQ5gAilWMqbk7cmWeT8U0ZQGy7rGHlRgsp9I+pmaaHMy2s wj9ay8dlY+4sFepzVNyQWOeosizuzuwsf1MOCPxKCMl/L0XTwxEG4aEix4z1Uf7d ZgfloP8XI+VfemY+CE9ZF3NHGwZrUudMxy1KbBnnC7lmHZ3GIUmi7+yNzSebhwGC 9YHcBKC5g45ozwGF+Aek4eSkvf7tgJvVup68Pmfq6/n4fI892i6dxkstpZC2wtuq /XrMk+gxjPewr0nDGup2o9zeUCuq0nE89LzxGr+JIQiRpBQe16N0ovr+7rFg1kAl TM8HQ+E9gPTLAogULPdTo/klEpoaWyIszhtaqC6JUzT5CaQl/Ix3pI4v8tlPqxzO 8dgJt3FtCATN27c7xfeqPcDXUoCKjVGuLOoEQZUsVXC33cU1EFA87pzmikAlSq4H 3TyoEr7wetIMIK1uJYIVaKLeWHp3aEe9iWrrZE0GxIxAEWMG3s+j4Y2+WKEdqlwI HhTP1BUJiDqg/jabMkCMMT3MGnArbacHJsZt5RFdK7ALxjYyGfepDLUxmxzDcYsb ZfOWxcBBTJniSqAvlu+NlsbgITFQ/h0a5g2+7uVJ+pE0bPY28fo2aIZv0FQoM0Iq 8OzYNwo/5ugyZHYqO/UgYPmxRXolvDMczKC46bcniClywT9GqPw= =dNPB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--