From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261389AbUEAKzC (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2004 06:55:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261421AbUEAKzC (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2004 06:55:02 -0400 Received: from mail4-141.ewetel.de ([212.6.122.141]:11939 "EHLO mail4.ewetel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261389AbUEAKzA (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2004 06:55:00 -0400 Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 12:54:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Pascal Schmidt To: Trond Myklebust cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Possible permissions bug on NFSv3 kernel client In-Reply-To: <1083357597.13656.37.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Message-ID: References: <1QqNJ-4QH-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <1QqNJ-4QH-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <1QqNJ-4QH-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <1Qrhg-5hH-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <1083357597.13656.37.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-CheckCompat: OK Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Trond Myklebust wrote: > So why do you think that is inconsistent with my statement: "the > permissions checking has to be done by the server, period"? I see it wasn't clear from my reply. I don't disagree at all. Permission checking is the server's job. Clients are untrusted. > This should be entirely consistent with local file behaviour. > Particularly since the code to deal with the read-only mount option in > nfs_permission() was pretty much cut-n-pasted from vfs_permission(). The original poster said it didn't work for him on an NFSv3 mount. Looking at nfs_permission() I (of course) agree it looks innocent enough. -- Ciao, Pascal