On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 20:19 +0100, John Hughes wrote:
On 11/18/2011 07:35 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:No. Because the process can receive a reply to the write() syscall that
Why?
You need a big fat warning somewhere that enabling this option WILL
cause data corruption...
Because some process may get the EACCES error half way through it's
operation.
indicates that the data is safe,
but the EKEYEXPIRED error will cause
the data to be lost when the client tries to actually commit the data to
disk.
The traditional Kerberos/AFS way was to behave the old way, and useWhich is just wrong: the general intention of kerberos security is to
krenew to keep the ticket from expiring if a process needed to be run
overnight.
ensure that the _user_ has ACKed an operation. Renewing tickets without
user input would circumvent that intention. If you need to have the job
run overnight, then ask for a longer lifetime for your ticket.
I don't understand. How is it a win to block processes *before* the ticket has expired?What other way is there of fixing the problem if we are going to keepNotify the kernel that a ticket is about to expire so that the kernel
the "hang 'till a ticket turns up" behaviour? (rewrite gnome and kde
seems kind of a big job).
can decide to block the process on the next NFS-related syscall.