Subject: [nfsv4] ignore cinfo in Open reply for Claim_FH?

From: Rick Macklem <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:55:47 +0000

Hi,

Although I think the answer is fairly obvious, I thought
I'd bring it up, since I can't find anything that clarifies
this in RFC8881.

What does the "cinfo" in an Open reply mean (I'd guess
nothing and should be ignored) for Claim types where the
CFH is not a directory (such as Claim_FH)?

rick

---

From: Trond Myklebust <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 19:05:35 -0400

>From RFC5661 Section 18.16.3

   For the target directory, the server returns change_info4 information
   in cinfo.  With the atomic field of the change_info4 data type, the
   server will indicate if the before and after change attributes were
   obtained atomically with respect to the link creation.

I've always interpreted that last sentence as implying that the cinfo
should be ignored unless you are creating a file.

-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
[email-masked]

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 20:49:23 -0400

I agree with you.  The phrase "should be ignored", although clear and
correct, may run into problems in the IESG, where sometimes lower-case
"should" arouses opposition.  I might wind up with, "conveys no
information, making it desirable for client implementations to ignore this
field where there is no target directory or a file is nor created."

On Sun, Mar 13, 2022, 5:56 PM Rick Macklem <[email-masked]> wrote:

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