2002-06-18 13:04:05

by Stuart MacDonald

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: n_tty.c driver patch (semantic and performance correction) (a ll recent versions)

From: "Robert White" <[email protected]>
> should you use your greater-access to the code and user base, you would
find
> a single case where it breaks, invalidates, or confuses a single person or
> program on the planet.

I can see one easy case: protocol has frame size of N. VMIN is set to
say 3 * N. read() supplies a buffer of N. The purpose being that the
first read will block until 3 frames are ready to process, then return
the first one. Your patch would break that.

Having said that, I don't know of any instances where the above is
employed. I'd say your patch is worthwhile.

..Stu



2002-06-19 04:59:42

by Dax Kelson

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Anyone using NFSv4?

I noticed that the CITI group release a new June snapshot of NFSv4
support for Linux. It is a patch against 2.4.18.

http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/nfsv4/june_2002_rel/index.html

They say, "The current version passes all Connectathon tests, and
interoperates with other implementations".

Currently NFSv2/3 is too insecure for my tastes, I'm greatly looking
forward to the strong authentication, integrity, and privacy that NFSv4
with secure RPC offers. I can envision handy uses for the "pseudo path"
feature of NFSv4 as well.

I was just wondering if anyone (other that CITI) is keeping an eye on
it? Are there any pieces worth merging yet? Just curious.

Dax Kelson

2002-06-19 23:48:36

by David Ford

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: Anyone using NFSv4?

My first glance at it suggested that only ext2/ext3 filesystems were
supported. I run all reiserfs so I'l have to wait.

David

Dax Kelson wrote:

>I noticed that the CITI group release a new June snapshot of NFSv4
>support for Linux. It is a patch against 2.4.18.
>
>http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/nfsv4/june_2002_rel/index.html
>
>They say, "The current version passes all Connectathon tests, and
>interoperates with other implementations".
>
>Currently NFSv2/3 is too insecure for my tastes, I'm greatly looking
>forward to the strong authentication, integrity, and privacy that NFSv4
>with secure RPC offers. I can envision handy uses for the "pseudo path"
>feature of NFSv4 as well.
>
>I was just wondering if anyone (other that CITI) is keeping an eye on
>it? Are there any pieces worth merging yet? Just curious.
>
>Dax Kelson
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>