Re: FMODE_EXEC or alike?

[Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>]

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).

Basically, your proposal makes heavy assumptions on what clients will
want to use the share modes for, and will misbehave badly for any client
that breaks those assumptions.

Cheers,
  Trond

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/