From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
ASANO Masahiro <masano@tnes.nec.co.jp>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix posix lock on NFS
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:24:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1136337847.7846.50.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43BAD9DF.4090401@redhat.com>
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 15:09 -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >Mandatory locks aren't mandatory for other clients.
> >
> >
>
> So?
>
> I guess that I don't understand this response.
>
> The server is responsible for keeping itself from attempting to access
> a mandatory lock file. The client is not responsible for doing so and
> trying to help the server is kind of a waste of time, mostly.
>
> The mandatory lock mode bits really only come into play when attempting
> to read or write the file. In this case, the system will automatically
> try to take a lock for the process, if that process does not already
> have a lock. The server should prevent itself from trying to access
> files like this in order to avoid DoS attacks.
>
> The NFS client does not support mandatory locking, mostly due to the
> possibility of DoS attacks and also due to the locking and NFS protocols
> not being sufficiently aware of each other. NFSv4 can be used to address
> this latter problem, but probably not the former.
>
> So, why deny lock requests for such files? Especially on the client?
I agree, however that would have been a change in behaviour that would
have been hard to find time to test properly in an -rc6(?) release, so
we went for the quick and dirty fix.
Cheers,
Trond
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-04 1:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-22 4:24 ASANO Masahiro
2006-01-03 19:39 ` Peter Staubach
2006-01-03 19:46 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-01-03 20:09 ` Peter Staubach
2006-01-04 1:24 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2006-01-04 14:16 ` Peter Staubach
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1136337847.7846.50.camel@lade.trondhjem.org \
--to=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=masano@tnes.nec.co.jp \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=staubach@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®