Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs+bounces-1054-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKAoaQniGNGuPm5CTTs3oJRuCH40HTt6K91nCAPRnt0tECxkBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <bce828afb68c973d684b3e179cf8d6ce39c8b9c3.camel@kernel.org>
 <39adc7fc114c6f8ea38fe7c846c322dab5fac907.camel@kernel.org>
 <CAKAoaQkdY-NOgWoVKN+oitTSFbmfC7fixoxDfXR0SF-6EJrEOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5057fdb94f4d61661f9d13ccadb775a3a5bcdc92.camel@kernel.org>
 <CAAvCNcCC7xB1oWoSxaL269T62TuOYx64A+49fRoJTFJZ6xD+EA@mail.gmail.com> <6065a76f32face0fa5cf84a238bcb1f2eebec7b5.camel@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <6065a76f32face0fa5cf84a238bcb1f2eebec7b5.camel@kernel.org>
From: Roland Mainz <roland.mainz@nrubsig.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 06:49:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKAoaQnEm2yO2P2gxe5-F4RzFyGBs5gsuaV1A76DsnwAz0gszw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NFSv4.1 mandatory locks working in Linux nfsd ?
To: Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:24=E2=80=AFAM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wr=
ote:
> On Fri, 2024-01-12 at 01:44 +0100, Dan Shelton wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 23:53, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2024-01-11 at 22:27 +0100, Roland Mainz wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 4:55=E2=80=AFPM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel=
.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2024-01-11 at 10:54 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 2023-12-24 at 18:29 +0100, Roland Mainz wrote:
[snip]
> > 2. No one is going to implement a giant set of code just so that SAMBA
> > and NFSv4 can work. SAMBA has a builtin emulation so mandatory locking
> > works between Windows clients, ignoring the Linux side and Linux
> > advisory locking completely.
> >
>
> Also, pretty much. With a general purpose OS like Linux, we try to avoid
> this sort of emulation. We do have that for the share/deny locking that
> happens during OPEN, but there was really no choice there since we
> couldn't reasonably implement that in the VFS, and it was a required
> part of the NFSv4 protocol.
>
> Mandatory locking is optional so we can just opt-out.

How can I test for that in a NFSv4.1 client implementation ?

----

Bye,
Roland
--=20
  __ .  . __
 (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz@nrubsig.org
  \__\/\/__/  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
  /O /=3D=3D\ O\  TEL +49 641 3992797
 (;O/ \/ \O;)