From f7b8066f9ff68016489ff6f9fb358aa59bd14e1b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:20:45 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] knfsd: don't bother mapping putrootfh enoent to eperm Neither EPERM and ENOENT map to valid errors for PUTROOTFH according to rfc 3530, and, if anything, ENOENT is likely to be slightly more informative; so don't bother mapping ENOENT to EPERM. (Probably this was originally done because one likely cause was that there is an fsid=0 export but that it isn't permitted to this particular client. Now that we allow WRONGSEC returns, this is somewhat less likely.) In the long term we should work to make this situation less likely, perhaps by turning off nfsv4 service entirely in the absence of the pseudofs root, or constructing a pseudofilesystem root ourselves in the kernel as necessary. Thanks to Benny Halevy for pointing out this problem. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields Cc: Benny Halevy --- fs/nfsd/export.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/nfsd/export.c b/fs/nfsd/export.c index cbbc594ef592..79b4bf812960 100644 --- a/fs/nfsd/export.c +++ b/fs/nfsd/export.c @@ -1357,8 +1357,6 @@ exp_pseudoroot(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *fhp) mk_fsid(FSID_NUM, fsidv, 0, 0, 0, NULL); exp = rqst_exp_find(rqstp, FSID_NUM, fsidv); - if (PTR_ERR(exp) == -ENOENT) - return nfserr_perm; if (IS_ERR(exp)) return nfserrno(PTR_ERR(exp)); rv = fh_compose(fhp, exp, exp->ex_dentry, NULL);