On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 07:12:09PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > Oops. Sorry, the correct sub-sub-sub-sub-paragraph is this one:
> >
> > Permission to execute a file.
> >
> > Servers SHOULD allow a user the abili
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 07:12:09PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Oops. Sorry, the correct sub-sub-sub-sub-paragraph is this one:
>
> Permission to execute a file.
>
> Servers SHOULD allow a user the ability to read the data of the
> file when only the ACE4_EXECUTE
> >> >> Oops. Sorry, the correct sub-sub-sub-sub-paragraph is this one:
> >> >>
> >> >> Permission to execute a file.
> >> >>
> >> >> Servers SHOULD allow a user the ability to read the data of the
> >> >> file when only the ACE4_EXECUTE access mask bit is allowed.
>
>> >> Oops. Sorry, the correct sub-sub-sub-sub-paragraph is this one:
>> >>
>> >> Permission to execute a file.
>> >>
>> >> Servers SHOULD allow a user the ability to read the data of the
>> >> file when only the ACE4_EXECUTE access mask bit is allowed.
>> >>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Frank Filz
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Trond Myklebust
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Frank Filz
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Frank S. Filz
> >> >>>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> > From: "Frank S
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Frank Filz wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Trond Myklebust
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Frank Filz
>> wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Frank S. Filz
>> >>>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > From: "Frank S. Filz"
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Trond Myklebust
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Frank Filz
> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Frank S. Filz
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > From: "Frank S. Filz"
> >>> >
> >>> > The NFS v4 client sends a COMPOUND with an OPEN and an ACCESS.
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Trond Myklebust
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Frank Filz wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Frank S. Filz
>>> wrote:
>>> > From: "Frank S. Filz"
>>> >
>>> > The NFS v4 client sends a COMPOUND with an OPEN and an ACCESS.
>>> >
>>> > The ACCESS i
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Frank Filz wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Frank S. Filz
>> wrote:
>> > From: "Frank S. Filz"
>> >
>> > The NFS v4 client sends a COMPOUND with an OPEN and an ACCESS.
>> >
>> > The ACCESS is required to verify an open for read is actually allowed
>> > be
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Frank S. Filz
> wrote:
> > From: "Frank S. Filz"
> >
> > The NFS v4 client sends a COMPOUND with an OPEN and an ACCESS.
> >
> > The ACCESS is required to verify an open for read is actually allowed
> > because RFC 3530 indicates OPEN for read only must succeed fo
Hi Frank
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Frank S. Filz wrote:
> From: "Frank S. Filz"
>
> The NFS v4 client sends a COMPOUND with an OPEN and an ACCESS.
>
> The ACCESS is required to verify an open for read is actually
> allowed because RFC 3530 indicates OPEN for read only must succeed
> for an
From: "Frank S. Filz"
I used the following program to test the patch:
It does report 4 failures, as expected, when the file does not already exist:
open("foo", O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_RDONLY, 000);
open("foo", O_CREAT | O_TRUNC | O_RDONLY, 111);
open("foo", O_CREAT | O_TRU
From: "Frank S. Filz"
The NFS v4 client sends a COMPOUND with an OPEN and an ACCESS.
The ACCESS is required to verify an open for read is actually
allowed because RFC 3530 indicates OPEN for read only must succeed
for an execute only file.
The old code expected to have read access if the reques
13 matches
Mail list logo
