On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 15:09 -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >Mandatory locks aren't mandatory for other clients.
> >
> >
>
> So?
>
> I guess that I don't understand this response.
>
> The server is responsible for keeping itself from attempting to access
> a mandatory lock file. The client is not responsible for doing so and
> trying to help the server is kind of a waste of time, mostly.
>
> The mandatory lock mode bits really only come into play when attempting
> to read or write the file. In this case, the system will automatically
> try to take a lock for the process, if that process does not already
> have a lock. The server should prevent itself from trying to access
> files like this in order to avoid DoS attacks.
>
> The NFS client does not support mandatory locking, mostly due to the
> possibility of DoS attacks and also due to the locking and NFS protocols
> not being sufficiently aware of each other. NFSv4 can be used to address
> this latter problem, but probably not the former.
>
> So, why deny lock requests for such files? Especially on the client?
I agree, however that would have been a change in behaviour that would
have been hard to find time to test properly in an -rc6(?) release, so
we went for the quick and dirty fix.
Cheers,
Trond
-
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]
