Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271576AbTGQVrZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:47:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271579AbTGQVrZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:47:25 -0400 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]:4345 "EHLO pat.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271576AbTGQVrO (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:47:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16151.7350.505992.554003@charged.uio.no> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:01:26 +0200 To: torvalds@osdl.org, fcusack@fcusack.com cc: Linux Kernel , NFS maillist Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow unattended nfs3/krb5 mounts In-Reply-To: <20030717190428.GA4735@spaans.vs19.net> References: <20030715232605.A9418@google.com> <20030717190428.GA4735@spaans.vs19.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 8) "Honest Recruiter" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no From: Trond Myklebust X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning. X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1563 Lines: 40 Linus, Could we please back off the merging of these particular patches, in order to give time for some critical debate? I'm glad Frank has been working on this, but if there has been a proper debate on the merits of these patches, then I must have missed it. I have indeed seen the patches pass through my inbox once, but I have not had time yet to review them properly, and feed back my comments to Frank. I have clear doubts about this patch. The 'fake root' inode does not appear to have a well defined behaviour when it tries to circumvent revalidation rules. AFAICS things like 'stat()', etc will at times tend to give odd results even if the user does have the correct credentials. On a similar vein, I'm also unconvinced that there exist no races between the lookup of new files, and the first setting of the NFS_FILEID() on the root directory. fileid=1 is *not* a reserved inode number under NFS v2 or v3, so it is perfectly legitimate for the server to have other inodes with that number. In this case, iget5_locked() may end up assigning the same inode to the root inode + some other file. I also have questions about smaller issues, such as why we need a full second RPC client in the superblock just in order to (very temporarily) add a second authentication flavour. Cheers, Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/