Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:53:50 -0800 From: Guy Harris <gharris@flashcom.net> To: Bjoern Groenvall <bg@sics.se> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>, Linux NFS mailing list <nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>, Guy Harris <gharris@flashcom.net>, Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>, matthias.andree@stud.uni-dortmund.de Subject: Re: [NFS] Incompatible: FreeBSD 4.2 client, Linux 2.2.18 nfsv3 server, read-only export Message-ID: <20010123105350.B344@quadrajet.flashcom.com> In-Reply-To: <wuofwynsj5.fsf_-_@bg.sics.se>; from bg@sics.se on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 05:26:54PM %2B0100 References: <20010123015612.H345@quadrajet.flashcom.com> <20010123162930.B5443@emma1.emma.line.org> <wuofwynsj5.fsf_-_@bg.sics.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 05:26:54PM +0100, Bjoern Groenvall wrote: > The RFC does not explicitly mention how to handle read-only file > systems. I think it would be really nice if the server returns those > permissions that the client is allowed with the write bits unset. Yes - for one thing, that means that if some client decides, while it's asking whether the server whether it can write to a file, to check also whether it can read from the file, it can get back an answer to both of those questions, even if the file is on a read-only file system. > That is also the solution that Guy came up with. I can't claim credit for the notion of handling ACCESS requests to files on read-only file systems in that fashion - I just checked what Solaris did. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010123105350.B344>