RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 3530, "Network File System (NFS) version 4 Protocol", April 2003

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 7530

Source of RFC: nfsv4 (tsv)
See Also: RFC 3530w/ inline errata

Errata ID: 2663
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Marcel Telka
Date Reported: 2010-12-08
Verifier Name: Lars Eggert
Date Verified: 2011-03-07

Section 8.11. says:

   When an OPEN is done for a file and the lockowner for which the open
   is being done already has the file open, the result is to upgrade the
   open file status maintained on the server to include the access and
   deny bits specified by the new OPEN as well as those for the existing
   OPEN.  The result is that there is one open file, as far as the
   protocol is concerned, and it includes the union of the access and
   deny bits for all of the OPEN requests completed.  Only a single
   CLOSE will be done to reset the effects of both OPENs.  Note that the
   client, when issuing the OPEN, may not know that the same file is in
   fact being opened.  The above only applies if both OPENs result in
   the OPENed object being designated by the same filehandle.

It should say:

   When an OPEN is done for a file and the open_owner for which the open
   is being done already has the file open, the result is to upgrade the
   open file status maintained on the server to include the access and
   deny bits specified by the new OPEN as well as those for the existing
   OPEN.  The result is that there is one open file, as far as the
   protocol is concerned, and it includes the union of the access and
   deny bits for all of the OPEN requests completed.  Only a single
   CLOSE will be done to reset the effects of both OPENs.  Note that the
   client, when issuing the OPEN, may not know that the same file is in
   fact being opened.  The above only applies if both OPENs result in
   the OPENed object being designated by the same filehandle.

Notes:

The file opens are related to open_owners, not lockowners. The lockowner
should be replaced by open_owner in the first sentence of the paragraph above.

Report New Errata