Return-Path: Received: from discipline.rit.edu ([129.21.6.207]:63954 "HELO discipline.rit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750877AbcAUThY (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:37:24 -0500 From: Andrew W Elble To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] nfsd: implement machine credential support for some operations References: <1453147702-42961-1-git-send-email-aweits@rit.edu> <1453147702-42961-4-git-send-email-aweits@rit.edu> <20160121190134.GB1793@fieldses.org> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:30:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160121190134.GB1793@fieldses.org> (J. Bruce Fields's message of "Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:01:34 -0500") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Doesn't this mean that a compound like e.g.: > > PUTFH > CLOSE > OPEN > > would result in a return of true on the OPEN, if CLOSE was in must_allow > but OPEN wasn't? (Because the above loop sets spo_must_allowed as soon > as it hits the CLOSE.) Yes. A real-world example is DELEGRETURN with the Linux NFS client: PUTFH GETATTR DELEGRETURN GETATTR isn't in spo_must_allowed, but the whole compound request looks like krb5i in a krb5 setting. Still digesting the rest of your replies... Thanks, Andy -- Andrew W. Elble aweits@discipline.rit.edu Infrastructure Engineer, Communications Technical Lead Rochester Institute of Technology PGP: BFAD 8461 4CCF DC95 DA2C B0EB 965B 082E 863E C912