From owner-freebsd-stable  Tue Jan 23 19:20: 7 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from emma1.emma.line.org (p3EE3CBDA.dip.t-dialin.net [62.227.203.218])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A06437B6A5
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by emma1.emma.line.org (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id 8A8EEA2001; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:19:41 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:19:41 +0100
From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@stud.uni-dortmund.de>
To: Bjoern Groenvall <bg@sics.se>
Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	Linux NFS mailing list <nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [NFS] Incompatible: FreeBSD 4.2 client, Linux 2.2.18 nfsv3 server, read-only export
Message-ID: <20010124041941.B28212@emma1.emma.line.org>
References: <20010123015612.H345@quadrajet.flashcom.com> <20010123162930.B5443@emma1.emma.line.org> <wuofwynsj5.fsf_-_@bg.sics.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <wuofwynsj5.fsf_-_@bg.sics.se>; from bg@sics.se on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 17:26:54 +0100
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Bjoern Groenvall wrote:

> Or perhaps we should blame RFC1813? 

No.

> However, 1813 says that ACCESS
> should return one of the following errors
>       NFS3ERR_IO
>       NFS3ERR_STALE
>       NFS3ERR_BADHANDLE
>       NFS3ERR_SERVERFAULT
> ,and "The client encodes the
>       set of permissions that are to be checked in a bit mask.
>       The server checks the permissions encoded in the bit mask.
>       A status of NFS3_OK is returned along with a bit mask
>       encoded with the permissions that the client is allowed.".

That's what Linux does not do ATM.

> It also says 
>    "NFS3ERR_ROFS
>        Read-only file system. A modifying operation was
>        attempted on a read-only file system."

ACCESS is not a modification attempt, so ROFS in response to ACCESS is
always bogus. There is no contradiction here, so the server is at fault.

> The RFC does not explicitly mention how to handle read-only file
> systems.

No need to.

> I think it would be really nice if the server returns those
> permissions that the client is allowed with the write bits unset. That
> is also the solution that Guy came up with.

Agreed.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message