Re: Problems in 1.3.93

Andrew Walker (andy@lysaker.kvaerner.no)
Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:13:16 +0200 (MET DST)


Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > There really shouldn't be files laying around with r-S group permissions,
> > unless you really mean it. Additionally the whole issue of locks and NFS
> > needs to be resolved - I know Olaf Kirch started looking at lockd. I'm
> > tempted to pay X/Open the money they want for the standard and start looking
> > at it myself.
>
> Youve missed the problem totally. Mark a file mandatory locking, lock it
> (on the server), ask for it remotely - nfsd blocks. Goodbye nfs server.
>
> Ditto for backups and many other programs.
>
> Alan
>

You're right - I did miss your point slightly, although I hope you agree
with what I did write. Especially that marking files for mandatory locking
is a serious issue and shouldn't be undertaken lightly.

I do have a couple of comments which may or may not be of interest/
relevance:

1) A critical daemon like nfsd should be coded as defensively as possibly.
No harm in nfsd noticing the group-id bit and checking for locks with
F_GETLK.

2) Opening files with O_NONBLOCK avoids blocking on mandatory locks.

Throw the patches out if you really. They probably won't be missed by many
people. I implemented them as a small personal challenge and for a sense
of completeness - but if its more trouble than its worth then okay, no
problem.

-Andy

P.S.
I still maintain that anybody turning on mandatory locking for a file
without considering the circumstances is getting exactly what they ask
for, but I'm not so blind that I can't see the situation with a horde
of students who just love such devilish experiments. If the system
utilities can't feasibly be bulletproofed in this respect then I suppose
the locks just have to go.

-- 
Andy Walker                              Kvaerner Engineering a.s.
Andrew.Walker@lysaker.kvaerner.no        P.O. Box 222, N-1324 Lysaker, Norway

......if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence......