From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [NFS] [PATCH 2/7] NFS: if ATTR_KILL_S*ID bits are set, then skip mode change Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:01:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20070914120103.d1de2e64.jlayton@redhat.com> References: <200709041437.l84Eb4lw010007@dantu.rdu.redhat.com> <20070914102545.GF21965@sgi.com> <20070914070258.8fccb40e.jlayton@redhat.com> <20070914130924.GG21965@sgi.com> <20070914093846.7cdd89da.jlayton@redhat.com> <20070914144033.GD25610@sgi.com> <20070914105838.efbfc45e.jlayton@redhat.com> <20070914154345.GE25610@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ecryptfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, unionfs@filesystems.org, linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org To: Greg Banks Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070914154345.GE25610@sgi.com> Sender: reiserfs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:43:45 +1000 Greg Banks wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 10:58:38AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:40:33 +1000 > > Greg Banks wrote: > > > > > > > Ok, you convinced me. > > > > Right. When I was first looking at this, I considered some similar > > approaches, but hit roadblocks with all of them. The only real option > > seems to be to leave this to the server, but that does assume that the > > server handles this properly. > > > > Servers that don't are broken, IMO. > > According to what spec? A quick trip around the machine room shows > that neither Solaris 10 nor Darwin 7.9.0 clobber setuid on write > either. > Hmm, last time I checked Solaris, I thought it did, but that was Solaris 11. I'll plan to fire up my solaris qemu image and test it again... > > If Irix isn't clearing these bits > > on a write then it might be good to see if they can fix that... > > I think first you'd have to mount a serious argument that it's broken, > more serious than "it works differently from Linux". > Good point. POSIX is frustratingly ambiguous on this: Upon successful completion, where nbyte is greater than 0, write() shall mark for update the st_ctime and st_mtime fields of the file, and if the file is a regular file, the S_ISUID and S_ISGID bits of the file mode may be cleared. ...the "may" in that last sentence makes it optional, I suppose. Even if it weren't then I guess there's also an argument that a write that comes in via a nfs server may not be subject to the same semantics as the write() syscall. In any case, "broken" is probably too strong a term :-) -- Jeff Layton