I finally got around to looking at the delegation self-conflict problem
you asked me about: it looks not hard at all to make the server stop
revoking delegation in cases it's the client modifiying the file (or
metatadata), as long as we're in the 4.1 case or otherwise know which
client we're dealing with. I should post patches next week.
Remind me how you expect to take advantage of this? I think you wanted
to eliminate some cases where the client has to preemptively return
delegations, but don't you then need some way to know ahead of time what
the server behavior is?
--b.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 05:45:47PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> I finally got around to looking at the delegation self-conflict problem
> you asked me about: it looks not hard at all to make the server stop
> revoking delegation in cases it's the client modifiying the file (or
> metatadata), as long as we're in the 4.1 case or otherwise know which
> client we're dealing with. I should post patches next week.
Hah. My first attempt didn't work, so it took longer than expected.
The second attempt looks good, but needs some testing. That'll have to
wait a couple weeks--I'm going to be mostly offline for a while.
--b.
>
> Remind me how you expect to take advantage of this? I think you wanted
> to eliminate some cases where the client has to preemptively return
> delegations, but don't you then need some way to know ahead of time what
> the server behavior is?
>
> --b.