Subject: [nfsv4] more on mandatory vs advisory locking

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:10:22 -0400 (EDT)

Hi,

> The problem with this is that this "unix" may not be the same as that
> "unix" in this or other respects.  This particular behavior is a Unix
> SVID behavior and not a *BSD behavior.  I would consider it perfectly
> reasonable for a *BSD NFSv4 server to not support the SGID/mandatory
> file locking semantics.

Heh, heh. I had noticed that it was "Unix" and not "unix" in the spec. (I'm so
out of touch I've lost track of who holds the "Unix" licensing, somewhere after
Novell sold it to SCO... Is it now "Open..." that descended from OSF
and Unix International?)

Anyhow, back on topic, why I asked was that I was hoping that it would be widely
adopted as a method of controlling mandatory locking, maybe even to
the point where servers that don't support mandatory locking would
be strongly encouraged to not allow the setting of mode bits with
(MODE4_SGID set and MODE4_XGRP clear)?

Thanks for the help, rick
ps: My current server supports the SGID set + XGRP clear for individual
    files and an export flag for entire file systems for mandatory vs
    advisory. For a client to figure out if mandatory locking is enabled
    it has to do an Open, write lock as another lock_owner and then a
    Read to find out. Is there an easier way?

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

---

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:31:33 -0700

Gee, I wonder if obeying that convention might violate somebody's
intellectual property :-)  Hopefully, we haven't become that 
lawyer-plagued, yet.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 12:10 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nfsv4] more on mandatory vs advisory locking

Hi,