Subject: Re: nfs insecure_locks / Tru64 behaviour
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Bernd Eckenfels <be-mail2005@lina.inka.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20051223214138.GA25727@lina.inka.de>
References: <E1EprNK-0005ZC-00@calista.inka.de>
	 <1135371520.8555.2.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	 <20051223214138.GA25727@lina.inka.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:00:54 +0100
Message-Id: <1135375254.8555.49.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 904
Lines: 22

On Fri, 2005-12-23 at 22:41 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:58:40PM +0100, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > Huh? No it doesn't. The Linux NLM server requires that the client
> > authenticate using AUTH_SYS (unless you use insecure_locks), but it
> > certainly doesn't require you to have root privileges. That would
> > violate POSIX locking rules.
> 
> Yes, however True64 does not authenticate (properly), thats why you need the
> option if you want to do locking.

Sure, however his problem doesn't appear to be related to POSIX/fcntl
locking on the file itself, but rather to access checking on the parent
directory.

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/