Re: FMODE_EXEC or alike?

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 04:36:56PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 14:57 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 06:32:31PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > Hmm... I don't think you want to overload write deny bits onto
> > > FMODE_EXEC. FMODE_EXEC is basically, a read-only mode, so it
> > > would mean that you could no longer do something like
> > > 
> > >   OPEN(READ|WRITE,DENY_WRITE) 
> > > 
> > > which I would assume is one of the more frequent Windoze open modes.
> > 
> > Since exec will never use the above combination, I don't think the
> > current proposal mandates any particular semantics in that case.
> > 
> > So I'm assuming that we could choose the semantics to fit nfsd's
> > purposes.  Am I missing anything?
> 
> Yes. I'm saying that your mapping of the  NFSv4 DENY_WRITE share mode
> into FMODE_EXEC will _only_ work for the specific combination
> OPEN(READ,DENY_WRITE).

I understand that if FMODE_WRITE|FMODE_EXEC opens must fail, then
FMODE_EXEC is a poor fit for DENY_WRITE.

What I don't understand is the source of the requirement that
FMODE_WRITE|FMODE_EXEC opens be disallowed.

The only users of FMODE_EXEC introduced by Oleg's patch use a hardcoded
FMODE_READ|FMODE_EXEC, so it doesn't seem to impose any constraints on
the meaning of FMODE_WRITE|FMODE_EXEC.

--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/