Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6137 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750997Ab3KDTbD (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:31:03 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:30:56 -0500 From: Jeff Layton To: "Myklebust, Trond" Cc: Steve Dickson , Bruce Fields , Linux NFS Mailing List , "dpquigl@davequigley.com" Subject: Re: Labeled NFS: Is the value of FATTR4_WORD2_SECURITY_LABEL correct? Message-ID: <20131104143056.36474416@tlielax.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <58879923-7AE9-4E5B-A29E-4EA26E8330DD@netapp.com> References: <1383389838-1858-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <5277BAFB.9070109@RedHat.com> <48054582-1F6A-4A27-AE62-C9B0AE8F9619@netapp.com> <5277DFBB.1010901@RedHat.com> <58879923-7AE9-4E5B-A29E-4EA26E8330DD@netapp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:20:09 +0000 "Myklebust, Trond" wrote: > AFAICS from draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-20.txt, the ?sec_label? attribute has Id == 80. > > Shouldn?t that mean that FATTR4_WORD2_SECURITY_LABEL should take the value (1 << (80-64))? > > i.e. > > #define FATTR4_WORD2_SECURITY_LABEL (1UL << 16) > > instead of the current value of (1UL << 17)? > > Trond > Yeah, that does look wrong. Well spotted! Just to sanity check, the mdsthreshold bit is listed as bit 68 in RFC5661: #define FATTR4_WORD2_MDSTHRESHOLD (1UL << 4) ...so if we assume that that's correct, then FATTR4_WORD2_SECURITY_LABEL is really set to the value for change_sec_label... -- Jeff Layton