From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: Marking inodes as stale can be wrong Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:09:30 -0400 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <1083258570.3686.38.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <20040429144012.GA15361@suse.de> <1083257096.3686.27.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20040429165802.GA18748@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BJF2U-0000Bj-Oe for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:09:34 -0700 Received: from dh132.citi.umich.edu ([141.211.133.132] helo=lade.trondhjem.org ident=Debian-exim) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.30) id 1BJF2U-0000wX-Ee for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 10:09:34 -0700 To: Olaf Kirch In-Reply-To: <20040429165802.GA18748@suse.de> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 12:58, Olaf Kirch wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:44:56PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 10:40, Olaf Kirch wrote: > > > fh_verify did the subtree check, and found that > > > ~/Mail was mode 700, and hence user nobody didn't > > > have x permissions on the directory. So it would > > > return ESTALE to the client. > > > > This is a bug! > > Yes, probably. Even though I'm not entirely sure NFSERR_ACCES is a valid > return for all NFS operations. The problem is that Neil is using NFSERR_STALE as a standin for NFSERR_ACCES precisely because the latter is not on the list of accepted return value for GETATTR in RFC1813. IMO this is *worse* behaviour than just returning the non-rfc compatible error. > However, machines with 2.4 will be out there for a while, so the question > I'm asking myself is how to cope with those in the client. I am totally uninterested in fixing up a broken server option (even if it is a default option) inside the client. These "fixes" have a tendency to persist for way too long in the kernel code, and end up causing way more problems in the long run. "subtree_check" has a number of other RFC-violating bugs (most notably with cross-directory renames) that mean we should *never* have made it a default option in the first place. The correct workaround here is to advise people to *always* use "no_subtree_check" and then to look into fixing these problems in future revisions of the server, not the client. Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs