Subject: RE: [nfsv4] pNFS, OPEN principals and ACLs

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:11:09 -0400

I agree with Bruce.  It is too late to change this for v4.0.
We made a mistake but it is done.  People have coded based 
on the absence of this restriction in good faith and we
can't say we really meant something else.  We didn't.  We
just wish we had.

I also agree that there is nothing to stop us from making 
such a restiction for the data server in pNFS, although the
case of delegations needs some more thought.

There is a third issue which is whether it is OK to change 
this in general for v4.1.  While we should not change things
in v4.0 gratuitously, I do think it reasonable to consider
whether v4.1 might take a different path here.  The issue
of a principal changing your open state simply because he
is able to read the file you have open is one that we should
address somehow.

I think we need to discuss this issue more outside the context
of pNFS.  If Spencer is maintaning a list of issues to resolve
before v4.1 is done, I would say this needs to be on it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Shepler [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 3:38 PM
To: J. Bruce Fields
Cc: Carl Burnett; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Trond Myklebust
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] pNFS, OPEN principals and ACLs

On Tue, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 06:04:43PM -0700, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > m? den 29.08.2005 Klokka 16:35 (-0500) skreiv Carl Burnett:
> > > 
> > > RFC3530  makes no requirements on the client about a one to one
> > > relationship between credentials and open state ids, so a server
can
> > > assume this equivalence.
> > 
> > Why should that stop pNFS from requiring it on the stateids that are
to
> > be used on the data server?
> 
> Right.  I think not making such a requirement in 3530 was a
> mistake--users shouldn't be able to close each others' opens!  But
there
> are two entirely separate questions here:
> 
> 	1. Can we require nfsv4 clients to tie stateid's to principals?
> 	2. Can we make this requirement for nfsv4.1 clients sending
> 	   stateid's to data servers?
> 
> I don't know about #1, maybe it's too late for that.
> 

Do we need errata or an interpretation draft for this?

Spencer

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:45:33 -0500

> before v4.1 is done, I would say this needs to be on it.

I will place it on the list.