Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751485AbWBVWEn (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:04:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751484AbWBVWEm (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:04:42 -0500 Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:60622 "EHLO pickle.fieldses.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751468AbWBVWEl (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:04:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:04:35 -0500 To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Andrew Morton , Oleg Drokin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FMODE_EXEC or alike? Message-ID: <20060222220435.GJ28219@fieldses.org> References: <20060220221948.GC5733@linuxhacker.ru> <20060220215122.7aa8bbe5.akpm@osdl.org> <1140530396.7864.63.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20060221232607.GS22042@fieldses.org> <1140564751.8088.35.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20060222195721.GC28219@fieldses.org> <1140644216.7879.7.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1140644216.7879.7.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1585 Lines: 37 On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 04:36:56PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 14:57 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 06:32:31PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > Hmm... I don't think you want to overload write deny bits onto > > > FMODE_EXEC. FMODE_EXEC is basically, a read-only mode, so it > > > would mean that you could no longer do something like > > > > > > OPEN(READ|WRITE,DENY_WRITE) > > > > > > which I would assume is one of the more frequent Windoze open modes. > > > > Since exec will never use the above combination, I don't think the > > current proposal mandates any particular semantics in that case. > > > > So I'm assuming that we could choose the semantics to fit nfsd's > > purposes. Am I missing anything? > > Yes. I'm saying that your mapping of the NFSv4 DENY_WRITE share mode > into FMODE_EXEC will _only_ work for the specific combination > OPEN(READ,DENY_WRITE). I understand that if FMODE_WRITE|FMODE_EXEC opens must fail, then FMODE_EXEC is a poor fit for DENY_WRITE. What I don't understand is the source of the requirement that FMODE_WRITE|FMODE_EXEC opens be disallowed. The only users of FMODE_EXEC introduced by Oleg's patch use a hardcoded FMODE_READ|FMODE_EXEC, so it doesn't seem to impose any constraints on the meaning of FMODE_WRITE|FMODE_EXEC. --b. - 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/