From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:31:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:30:50 -0400 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]:21978 "EHLO pat.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:30:33 -0400 To: Alan Cox Cc: neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au (Neil Brown), abramo@alsa-project.org (Abramo Bagnara), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Linux Kernel), nfs-devel@linux.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [NFS] [PATCH] Bug in NFS - should umask be allowed to set umask??? In-Reply-To: <200107131212.f6DCC0v16274@devserv.devel.redhat.com> From: Trond Myklebust Date: 13 Jul 2001 15:30:21 +0200 In-Reply-To: Alan Cox's message of "Fri, 13 Jul 2001 08:12:00 -0400 (EDT)" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> " " == Alan Cox writes: >> 1/ Claim that redhat is broken. Leave them to fix SysVinit. 2/ >> Have nfsd over-write the umask setting that /sbin/init imposed. >> This is effectively what your patch does. 3/ Decide that it is >> inappropriate for nfsd to share the current->fs fs_struct with >> init. Unfortunately this means changing or replacing >> daemonize(). > #3 seems right. Of course its not clear whose fs struct should > #be shared Well, you can either use the fs_struct from init, or that of the first process to call nfsd. I'm not sure if there's any real point in having a chrooted nfsd, but it's easy to implement. In either case, the principle is the same: use copy_fs_struct() on whatever you want to clone, then have all the nfsd daemons and the lockd daemon attach to the new shared fs_struct when they get set up. No need to replace daemonize... Cheers, Trond