DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=JNqhFlZLWHR5XbhHCfjZF0/C0AKpG2XFg5cHyreo3WzIT4bZg2xoVfv/JRod3lzqxe
         ZCn8qvn5iClo/djaGy/sBj7tfN4rhi7JpU7Ra3l+DAjz+cbqp/Qu1jq4pjjLTn+zMqF1
         ELhQRie9amk0GyF16+9AqBfiUx6uvgkI8Y0TQ=
Message-ID: <524f69650812021221g7e5163e6y5b5bafa3b157092e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:21:35 -0600
From: "Steve French" <smfrench@gmail.com>
To: "Jamie Lokier" <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: Support for applications which need NFS or CIFS "share_deny" flags on open
Cc: "Andreas Dilger" <adilger@sun.com>,
       linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org" 
	<linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org>
In-Reply-To: <524f69650812021220n2b7611b9x2eb3b0b6c7ece849@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <524f69650812020831q4e089b87k9a8306ac37f4234a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20081202193819.GJ3186@webber.adilger.int>
	 <20081202200621.GA4451@shareable.org>
	 <524f69650812021220n2b7611b9x2eb3b0b6c7ece849@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2452
Lines: 64

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote:
>> Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>
>>> I can't see any reason for O_DENYREAD or O_DENYWRITE that can't be met
>>> with existing file locking to maintain coherency if that is really needed.
>
> I don't see how O_DENYREAD or more importantly, O_DENYWRITE can help.

A typo in my earlier post ... I meant ... I don't think (just) posix locking
(without also using O_DENYREAD) can be sufficient.

> If client A (Linux/Wine) does an open O_DENYWRITE, and we don't send
> the O_DENYWRITE on open, Samba (or Windows or NetApp or random NAS
> appliance etc.)
> will allow the open even if another Windows client is writing to the
> file.   The Linux/Wine
> subsystem could try to do a posix byte range lock from byte 0 to end
> of file and that
> would get mapped by the cifs client to a mandatory lock, but it
> doesn't help the case
> where another Windows client already has the file open for write, and you expect
> the open from your client to fail in that case.
>
>> Is there any reason why Wine cannot take an advisory lock _every_ time
>> it opens a file?  That would give Windows apps the behaviour they
>> expect, including across the network, without DOSing unix apps.
>>
>>> As for O_DENYDELETE - wouldn't that be irrelevant if the WINE code keeps
>>> an open file reference?  The data would still be accessible until WINE
>>> exits, and it wouldn't be a DOS.
>>
>> Windows apps do expect a file can't disappear while it's open.  This
>> is one way to detect if an app is running, and this particular
>> behaviour goes back to the oldest versions of Windows.
>>
>> Inside a single WINE instance or on a single host, your suggestion
>> works, but what about Windows apps on different hosts over a network share?
>>
>> The bit I find interesting is that other CIFS clients are said to
>> implement these flags.  If that means real unixes, maybe they've
>> worked out a sensible way to handle them?
>
> I thought that MacOS uses these flags (not just Windows, and of course
> older clients too OS/2, DOS etc.).
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>


-- 
Thanks,

Steve
--
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/