From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: Bug in NFSV3 ACCESS Procedure reply Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:27:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20080829002734.GA20109@fieldses.org> References: <9344d2ec0808271241x375a4d86r6cfa7c10beb905c8@mail.gmail.com> <20080828173424.GA3529@fieldses.org> <9344d2ec0808281041w15e2738ew546531398f80a312@mail.gmail.com> <20080828174917.GC3529@fieldses.org> <9344d2ec0808281052s71efeeebh81fea6805b6eef10@mail.gmail.com> <20080828185425.GA6146@fieldses.org> <9344d2ec0808281422v13ed6af9gc0f91569d52ca3be@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Dilip Kumar Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:44816 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753194AbYH2A1f (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:27:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <9344d2ec0808281422v13ed6af9gc0f91569d52ca3be-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:22:35PM -0700, Dilip Kumar wrote: > I was writing some scripts to map the Unix access modes to the access > flags in the NFS ACCESS Reply. I have run these scripts on Linux and > Solaris machines and the results were not the same. If I have some C > program which opens this directory in a write mode exported by an NFS > server it succeeds, if the server is Solaris, but fails if the server > is Linux. If I have write access on the directory, I would expect to > see write bit set for that directory in the ACCESS reply. Programs > like mkdir or cd require execute and write access to complete their > operations, but a normal open with write mode should succeed in either > case. I was more concerned about the differences in the implementation > of ACCESS in two different servers. Behavior that's different from Solaris probably merits investigation, but on its own that's not justification for making a change. It sounds like this isn't a real problem for you, just a result you observed in some tests, so for now I'm not inclined to worry about it very much. If you want to pursue it, you're welcome to make a patch (it's probably just a matter of adjusting those accessmap arrays in fs/nfsd/vfs.c), and you may well be correct to do so, but the patch will need to come with a more persuasive argument. --b.