Subject: RE: [nfsv4] New reclaim-related operations for v4.1

From: "Noveck, Dave" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 07:58:48 -0500

> For the new RECLAIM Ops, would "same principal as used for SETCLIENTID"
> be appropriate?

Since RECLAIM_COMPLETE affects global state for the client as a whole,
possibly making it impossible to reclaim additional locks "same principal 
as used for SETCLIENTID" would be appropriate.  I suppose the same would
apply to RECLAIM_START if we were doing that but I think the consensus 
is that that is not needed now, given the decision to make RECLAIM_COMPLETE
mandatory.

With regard to the issue of the principal for the reclaims themselves, I
think Spencer is right.  This needs to be addressed as part of a general
discussion of the relationship between principals and state-related operations.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 12:05 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] New reclaim-related operations for v4.1

Dave's writeup looks really good to me, but I thought I might suggest
that the authentication principal requirements be explicitly spelled
out for 4.1.

For the new RECLAIM Ops, would "same principal as used for SETCLIENTID"
be appropriate?

As Dave notes, there is nothing in RFC3530 that explicitly states what
authenticated principals should be allowed to do the OPEN and LOCK Ops
with Reclaim. It would be nice to see an explicit statement of what
is allowed. I see a couple of possibilities:
1 - Any principal that has appropriate access to the file.
2 - Same principal as was used for SETCLIENTID.

The only problem I can see w.r.t. #1 is if the access permissions on the
file have been reduced since the original OPEN/LOCK was granted, such that
the reclaim fails, because the client no longer has such an authenticated
principal. Should #2 be a possible fallback that servers can choose to
allow, if the server trusts the client's host based principal used for
SETCLIENTID?

Just a thought, rick

_______________________________________________
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: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:19:19 -0500 (EST)

>is that that is not needed now, given the decision to make RECLAIM_COMPLETE

and should it also allow the second rule in Renew (sec. 14.2.28, second
bullet)?
I can't see a strong argument against allowing the second rule to work,
for cases where the client no longer has a valid credential for the
original principal and was using the "second bullet rule" for Renews.

rick