Subject: [nfsv4] NFSv4.0 Open with same access/deny

From: Rick Macklem <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:04:41 -0400 (EDT)

Hi,

>From reading rfc3530, the following seems to be allowable, but I wanted
to check if anyone knows of a server that won't allow it?
1 - Open claim_null for foo by Joe (where Joe is a new openowner)
2   - succeeds and requires OpenConfirm, which also succeeds
3 - Open claim_null for foo by Joe with same access/deny as #1

I'm just wondering if #3 is considered allowable. (The RFC talks about
ORing in the access/deny bits, but doesn't mention anything about the
case where there are no new access/deny bits being added.)

Why would a client want to do #3 you might wonder? Well, I'd like to
do #3 against servers that are handing out open delegations, to see if
I can get an open delegation for foo. (Because of the requirement for
an OpenConfirm, #1 won't return a delegation.)

If you know of a server that won't like this, please let me know, rick

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

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:57:27 -0500

> If you know of a server that won't like this, please let me know, rick

Allowable.  Should be treated as an "upgrade" and as you note
would signify no real change in the access/deny bits.

Spencer