Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:10:07 -0800 From: Guy Harris <gharris@flashcom.net> To: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> Cc: Guy Harris <gharris@flashcom.net>, Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de>, Linux NFS mailing list <nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [NFS] Incompatible: FreeBSD 4.2 client, Linux 2.2.18 nfsv3 server, read-only export Message-ID: <20010124101007.A344@quadrajet.flashcom.com> In-Reply-To: <200101241104.f0OB4sS10071@mass.dis.org>; from msmith@freebsd.org on Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 03:04:54AM -0800 References: <20010124001701.F344@quadrajet.flashcom.com> <200101241104.f0OB4sS10071@mass.dis.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 03:04:54AM -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
> I'm not sure that the v3 specification actually cares about telling the
> client "why",
It doesn't, which I think may have been a mistake.
> > For example, a UNIX "open()" call that calls an "access" vnode operation
> > couldn't, if that file is mounted over NFS, find out that the open for
> > writing is forbidden because the file system is read-only; even if
> > that's the reason, the answer you get back is probably EACCES (that's
> > what happens in the Solaris NFS, for example).
>
> This would be more or less what I'd expect. From the client's point of
> view, returning "this is a read-only filesystem" is not very useful
> anyway. What's a read-only filesystem? The NFS mount? The filesystem
> backing the mount?
I'm not sure "Permission denied" is all that useful, either; if the file
has permissions rw-r--r-- and is owned by me, "Permission denied" is a
bit of a weird error - I'd rather have the message the program shows me
or logs to a file or whatever say "Read-only file system", as that tells
me that the underlying problem is that *something* is read-only, even if
it doesn't tell me whether it's the client machine's fault for
NFS-mounting it read-only or the server's fault for {locally mounting
it, exporting it} read-only.
> I still don't really understand why the Linux code would return EROFS;
Because it's buggy.
> In the meantime, I'd also ask the Linux NFS maintainers (if they're
> listening) to consider altering their server's behaviour just for the
> sake of correctness (if it hasn't already been done subsequent to this
> relatively ancient release).
2.4.0, which is definitely not an ancient release, still appears, from
looking at the code in question, to have that buggy behavior.
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?20010124101007.A344>