Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:15:41 +0100
From:      Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@stud.uni-dortmund.de>
To:        Linux NFS mailing list <nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: [NFS] Incompatible: FreeBSD 4.2 client, Linux 2.2.18 nfsv3 server, read-only export
Message-ID:  <20010124131541.C1839@emma1.emma.line.org>
In-Reply-To: <200101241104.f0OB4sS10071@mass.dis.org>; from msmith@freebsd.org on Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 03:04:54 -0800
References:  <20010124001701.F344@quadrajet.flashcom.com> <200101241104.f0OB4sS10071@mass.dis.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Mike Smith wrote:

> I'm not sure that the v3 specification actually cares about telling the 
> client "why", and if it did, it should probably have defined it.  I'm not 
> really happy that an ACCESS operation should ever return EROFS; the 
> operation itself doesn't attempt to write anything to the filesystem.

ROFS is not a valid response to ACCESS, as pointed out by Guy before.
Don't waste your time on working clients.

> I still don't really understand why the Linux code would return EROFS; we 
> send READ|MODIFY|EXTEND|EXECUTE|DELETE|LOOKUP.  If the filesystem is 
> read-only, we'd expect to see READ|EXECUTE|LOOKUP (at most) come back, 
> but with an OK response.

Because it's broken. Nobody has claimed Linux to be bug-free.

> This sounds about right.  I'd argue that the Linux server is probably in 
> error, but the "easy" solution here will simply be to discard EROFS as 
> "No means Yes for Linux", since it's a nonsense response to the query.

I don't think working around server bugs in servers that can be fixed is
the proper approach. You can still work around if the Linux NFSD maintainers
refuse to fix. I'll try to have a look myself later if possible.

> In the meantime, I'd also ask the Linux NFS maintainers (if they're 
> listening) to consider altering their server's behaviour just for the 
> sake of correctness (if it hasn't already been done subsequent to this 
> relatively ancient release).

I'll take care of reminding them until this issue is fixed.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010124131541.C1839>