On Tue, 01 Apr 2025, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 10:49 AM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 3/30/25 8:10 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > > >> > > >> This code would also make the behaviour consistent with prior to > > >> 4cc9b9f2bf4d. But now I question whether or not the new behaviour is > > >> what is desired going forward or not? > > >> > > >> Here's another thing to consider: the same command done over nfsv4 > > >> returns an error. I guess nobody ever complained that flock over v3 > > >> was successful but failed over v4? > > > > > > That is useful. Given that: > > > - exclusive flock without write access over v4 never worked > > > - As Tom notes, new man pages document that exclusive flock without write access > > > isn't expected to work over NFS > > > - it is hard to think of a genuine use case for exclusive flock without > > > write access > > > > > > I'm inclined to leave this code as it is and declare your failing test > > > to no longer be invalid. > > > > For the record, which test exactly is failing? Is there a BugLink? > > Test is just an flock()? > But what motivated you to perform that specific test: exclusive flock over NFSv3 on a file you didn't have write permission to ?? Is it part of a test suite? Or is it done by some application? or .... NeilBrown
