Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:04:35 -0500 | Subject | Re: FMODE_EXEC or alike? | From | "J. Bruce Fields" <> |
| |
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 04:36:56PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > 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).
I understand that if FMODE_WRITE|FMODE_EXEC opens must fail, then FMODE_EXEC is a poor fit for DENY_WRITE.
What I don't understand is the source of the requirement that FMODE_WRITE|FMODE_EXEC opens be disallowed.
The only users of FMODE_EXEC introduced by Oleg's patch use a hardcoded FMODE_READ|FMODE_EXEC, so it doesn't seem to impose any constraints on the meaning of FMODE_WRITE|FMODE_EXEC.
--b. - 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/
| |