IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nfsv4] one umask-02 question

David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Fri, 02 December 2016 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002621293DF for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 12:27:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zkbk-56Y2UUx for <nfsv4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 12:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com (mail-oi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85BDD120725 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 12:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id v84so278322319oie.3 for <nfsv4@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 12:27:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zmYRKjoGqTOFVAMacBvBxLzV7ELAgfXkN+6InR9T9r4=; b=oReU2lNMh/l8pTRdJBKLDg0Om/Aj+YA06Yf6gGpO9/aoL0uPjwqvu88IHtGwlVm8dh dCbilK5/WY+LMKrpTWlpQYxGZMHKsOER+/jkZjqa6nVmr9TnhFslTh0KVVgj3zTSP7FY 8runHu9tEyQ0lV02S2QAay9EMsQcOjk57WbviLRzGe8hxMPPSc54jNyAG6QOGyqK5eDC Ol+kEsC9O3wpHYlKLfCP4s1uTnE3jcPazgXg85iBti5bh3ByOUrqN6qKPG+63MokSBz7 GHmLp4Y4bSoU2i/bgIdioKq49bK8kg98drTCQGglwDIJYuziMyn7w6B1tpXjMMFyKcbc pGrw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zmYRKjoGqTOFVAMacBvBxLzV7ELAgfXkN+6InR9T9r4=; b=gS1UDTZywGr3CLzJhjSjBrIXlWe2emGzF82MtosZHHZvZmZI6X/jExyLQMEMxTRI4A YROqdonQojXTHeJIHKKNB6+KXKZCb1t5jA3jyatg5JI8/eEmLJ5HopO4QMxhohUBsWNH b2w/Oe1lpDLNg6+SJJpu/oyXZP3e6XhDnH/ydfqckEquO+CVQQuxAs3RmqLizGgZsB5Y hCGAWuoIGR9jL3tbO74//+g5mA8SfbQ2SrmtwgbcPa9DTYeDQTUYN0COcOYcK+3RsVf9 WVACJc4FusCdwaRWtgfPJ3zB5FxWeYwxBlhVDFkjH3iv84rrHmkhQU+P5H/B4XntNQ6O +/iA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00q5Yi70jV2ECxK9/57MvXTaVR/IIdv6BWlswFpF+9mv3Dk8bmqb5a7ageyC0BOZmvm0+VJaPMs2NdaAQ==
X-Received: by 10.202.84.209 with SMTP id i200mr22689015oib.50.1480710424749; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 12:27:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.137.202 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 12:27:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.137.202 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 12:27:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5636.1480709033@athyra-vm1.us.oracle.com>
References: <3471.1480623047@athyra-vm1.us.oracle.com> <CADaq8jeHsqRi8PEJPVs0uma_9TjGrFVj=-yq-4NF-9awX6wP0g@mail.gmail.com> <20161201220137.GA1589@fieldses.org> <CAHc6FU6OkNWi1HP79auC10pqF03DJcm2kExNLhg9z-ofDRjmYA@mail.gmail.com> <5607.1480708786@athyra-vm1.us.oracle.com> <5636.1480709033@athyra-vm1.us.oracle.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 15:27:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CADaq8jcu9xY7Cm3SeXGxepMk-Q+5JKenHhhy7T_hCUb0viimww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Kupfer <mike.kupfer@oracle.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113de1a0e1ed2f0542b2c2d7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfsv4/wNAB2NtFiU4yu08dnK0qslNLGoE>
Cc: nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] one umask-02 question
X-BeenThere: nfsv4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <nfsv4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfsv4/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>, <mailto:nfsv4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 20:27:16 -0000

It is. It is an error to set mode_umask in any SETATTR,  and I'm pretty
sure it is an error to set mode_set_masked in any operation that is not a
SETATTR.

On Dec 2, 2016 3:16 PM, "Mike Kupfer" <mike.kupfer@oracle.com> wrote:

> Mike Kupfer wrote:
>
> > Particularly since we already have the precedent of "mode" and
> > "mode_set_masked", I recommend returning INVAL.
>
> Of course, after I send this it occurs to me to ask if it's an error to
> set mode_set_masked and mode_umask in the same SETATTR.  Sorry, I'm a
> little slow here...
>
> mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> nfsv4@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email