From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: NFSv4 uninitialized mtime Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:19:45 -0400 Message-ID: <1183036785.6163.14.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> References: <20070627233114.GA14508@ligo.caltech.edu> <1182987805.5311.77.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20070628004904.GK9806@ligo.caltech.edu> <20070628005957.GA16461@ligo.caltech.edu> <20070627211559.e9fc68dd.jlayton@redhat.com> <20070628025327.GA18337@ligo.caltech.edu> <20070628064127.a769bc53.jlayton@redhat.com> <20070628080108.020ac237.jlayton@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Stuart Anderson , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I3tuh-00076c-L0 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:19:59 -0700 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15] ident=[U2FsdGVkX19QNcOvzJXVio5kREEWEsr+KD8NuRR5/no=]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1I3tuj-0005co-Ev for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:20:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20070628080108.020ac237.jlayton@redhat.com> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 08:01 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Yes, it looks like Solaris is sending back a zeroed out attrmask on > exclusive create. I'm testing against: > > Solaris Nevada snv_54 X86 > Copyright 2006 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. > Use is subject to license terms. > Assembled 04 December 2006 > > SunOS solaris 5.11 snv_54 i86pc i386 i86pc > > My guess is that they're using NFSv3 semantics in their NFSv4 client to > set the mtime and atime, and that's why it "works" there. This patchrev > is pretty old by now, so they may have already patched this issue. I'll > see if I can patch it and test again. > > All this, of course, is contingent upon my having interpreted the spec > correctly. I think I have, but wouldn't mind if someone sanity checked > me on it. The only nit I can see is that the server is in theory allowed to store the cookie in some writable attribute other than atime/mtime, but I can't think of that many that would make sense. Perhaps time_backup and time_create for those servers that support them? However since we don't care about their values and since they don't support a SET_TO_SERVER_TIME4 option, I'm not sure we want to bother... Trond ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs