On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 04:36:56PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 14:57 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 06:32:31PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > Hmm... I don't think you want to overload write deny bits onto
> > > FMODE_EXEC. FMODE_EXEC is basically, a read-only mode, so it
> > > would mean that you could no longer do something like
> > >
> > > OPEN(READ|WRITE,DENY_WRITE)
> > >
> > > which I would assume is one of the more frequent Windoze open modes.
> >
> > Since exec will never use the above combination, I don't think the
> > current proposal mandates any particular semantics in that case.
> >
> > So I'm assuming that we could choose the semantics to fit nfsd's
> > purposes. Am I missing anything?
>
> Yes. I'm saying that your mapping of the NFSv4 DENY_WRITE share mode
> into FMODE_EXEC will _only_ work for the specific combination
> OPEN(READ,DENY_WRITE).
I understand that if FMODE_WRITE|FMODE_EXEC opens must fail, then
FMODE_EXEC is a poor fit for DENY_WRITE.
What I don't understand is the source of the requirement that
FMODE_WRITE|FMODE_EXEC opens be disallowed.
The only users of FMODE_EXEC introduced by Oleg's patch use a hardcoded
FMODE_READ|FMODE_EXEC, so it doesn't seem to impose any constraints on
the meaning of FMODE_WRITE|FMODE_EXEC.
--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
