Re: [nfsv4] RFC 7530: Filehandle of opened file after the REMOVE

> If you read RFC7530, then the client is expected to return the delegation
before doing any form of RENAME or REMOVE

Could you be more specific about where you saw that?  I tried to find it
but didn't succeed.  In fact, with regard to RENAME, the text makes the
need for a recall conditional about whether the server in question might
disallow RENAMEs depending on what existing opens deny.  I don't remember
any statement about expectations regarding delegation return in advance of
these ops.

> since the server has no stateid or session id with which to identify the
origin of the RPC call.

True statement about an annoying aspect of v4.0, but I'm not clear about
where it appears in RFC7530.

> It is less obvious that this needs be the case for NFSv4.x (x>0), but I
can't remember seeing any changes to those texts in RFC5661.

Once we find the text in RFC7530, we can address RFC5661.  If the text you
recall seeing in RFC7530 appears unchanged in RFC5661, we might need an
errata.

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 2 January 2017 at 00:19, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
>> Tom Talpey wrote:
>> On 1/1/2017 8:13 AM, David Noveck wrote:
>> > Btw, my preferred title for such a document, almost certain to be
>> > rejected, is "Silly Rename Must Die" :-)
>> Actually replying to a random thread, mostly Dave's...
>>
>> A case that I wasn't clear on w.r.t. this is:
>> - The client holds a delegation for the file.
>> - The client issues opens locally w.r.t. this delegation.
>> - A process/thread on the client does a "Remove" of the file.
>>
>> Is the client expected to acquire Opens against the server and return the
>> Delegation? (This seems like more work than just doing good old
>> sillyrename?)
>> - Or does a Delegation have the same effect as an Open against the file
>> on the
>>   server.
>>
>
> If you read RFC7530, then the client is expected to return the delegation
> before doing any form of RENAME or REMOVE, since the server has no stateid
> or session id with which to identify the origin of the RPC call.
>
> It is less obvious that this needs be the case for NFSv4.x (x>0), but I
> can't remember seeing any changes to those texts in RFC5661.
>
> Cheers
>   Trond
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>
>