Trond Myklebust wrote:
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.
Okay.
Are we going to be able to fix this properly once things open up a bit then?
Thanx...
ps
-
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]
