draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-18.txt   draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-19.txt 
NFSv4 T. Haynes, Ed. NFSv4 T. Haynes, Ed.
Internet-Draft NetApp Internet-Draft NetApp
Intended status: Standards Track March 13, 2013 Intended status: Standards Track March 14, 2013
Expires: September 14, 2013 Expires: September 15, 2013
NFS Version 4 Minor Version 2 NFS Version 4 Minor Version 2
draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-18.txt draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-19.txt
Abstract Abstract
This Internet-Draft describes NFS version 4 minor version two, This Internet-Draft describes NFS version 4 minor version two,
focusing mainly on the protocol extensions made from NFS version 4 focusing mainly on the protocol extensions made from NFS version 4
minor version 0 and NFS version 4 minor version 1. Major extensions minor version 0 and NFS version 4 minor version 1. Major extensions
introduced in NFS version 4 minor version two include: Server-side introduced in NFS version 4 minor version two include: Server-side
Copy, Application I/O Advise, Space Reservations, Sparse Files, Copy, Application I/O Advise, Space Reservations, Sparse Files,
Application Data Blocks, and Labeled NFS. Application Data Blocks, and Labeled NFS.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [8]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 15, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
1.4.1. Server-side Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4.1. Server-side Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4.2. Application I/O Advise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4.2. Application I/O Advise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4.3. Sparse Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4.3. Sparse Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4.4. Space Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4.4. Space Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4.5. Application Data Hole (ADH) Support . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4.5. Application Data Hole (ADH) Support . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4.6. Labeled NFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4.6. Labeled NFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5. Differences from NFSv4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.5. Differences from NFSv4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Minor Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Minor Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Server-side Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. Server-side Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.1. Overview of Copy Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2.1. Overview of Copy Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2. Locking the Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2.2. Locking the Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3. Intra-Server Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2.3. Intra-Server Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.4. Inter-Server Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.2.4. Inter-Server Copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.5. Server-to-Server Copy Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2.5. Server-to-Server Copy Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3. Requirements for Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3. Requirements for Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.1. netloc4 - Network Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3.1. netloc4 - Network Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3.2. Offload Stateids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3.2. Copy Offload Stateids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4.1. Inter-Server Copy Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.4.1. Inter-Server Copy Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. Support for Application IO Hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4. Support for Application IO Hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5. Sparse Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5. Sparse Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.3. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3.1. READ_PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.3.1. READ_PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3.2. WRITE_PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.3.2. WRITE_PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6. Space Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6. Space Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. Application Data Hole Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7. Application Data Hole Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.1. Generic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.1. Generic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1.1. Data Hole Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.1.1. Data Hole Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.1.2. Data Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.1.2. Data Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2. An Example of Detecting Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.2. An Example of Detecting Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.3. Example of READ_PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7.3. Example of READ_PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8. Labeled NFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8. Labeled NFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 8.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8.3. MAC Security Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 8.3. MAC Security Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8.3.1. Delegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 8.3.1. Delegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8.3.2. Permission Checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 8.3.2. Permission Checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8.3.3. Object Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 8.3.3. Object Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8.3.4. Existing Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 8.3.4. Existing Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8.3.5. Label Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 8.3.5. Label Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8.4. pNFS Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 8.4. pNFS Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
8.5. Discovery of Server Labeled NFS Support . . . . . . . . . 41 8.5. Discovery of Server Labeled NFS Support . . . . . . . . . 42
8.6. MAC Security NFS Modes of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 41 8.6. MAC Security NFS Modes of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 42
8.6.1. Full Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 8.6.1. Full Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8.6.2. Guest Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 8.6.2. Guest Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
8.7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 8.7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9. Sharing change attribute implementation details with NFSv4 9. Sharing change attribute implementation details with NFSv4
clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
9.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 9.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
11. Error Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 11. Error Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
11.1. Error Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 11.1. Error Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
11.1.1. General Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 11.1.1. General Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
11.1.2. Server to Server Copy Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 11.1.2. Server to Server Copy Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
11.1.3. Labeled NFS Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 11.1.3. Labeled NFS Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
11.2. New Operations and Their Valid Errors . . . . . . . . . . 46 11.2. New Operations and Their Valid Errors . . . . . . . . . . 47
11.3. New Callback Operations and Their Valid Errors . . . . . 49 11.3. New Callback Operations and Their Valid Errors . . . . . 50
12. New File Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 12. New File Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
12.1. New RECOMMENDED Attributes - List and Definition 12.1. New RECOMMENDED Attributes - List and Definition
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
12.2. Attribute Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 12.2. Attribute Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
13. Operations: REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, or OPTIONAL . . . . . . . . 54 13. Operations: REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, or OPTIONAL . . . . . . . . 55
14. NFSv4.2 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 14. NFSv4.2 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
14.1. Operation 59: COPY - Initiate a server-side copy . . . . 58 14.1. Operation 59: COPY - Initiate a server-side copy . . . . 59
14.2. Operation 60: OFFLOAD_ABORT - Cancel a server-side 14.2. Operation 60: OFFLOAD_ABORT - Cancel a server-side
copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
14.3. Operation 61: COPY_NOTIFY - Notify a source server of 14.3. Operation 61: COPY_NOTIFY - Notify a source server of
a future copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 a future copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
14.4. Operation 62: OFFLOAD_REVOKE - Revoke a destination 14.4. Operation 62: OFFLOAD_REVOKE - Revoke a destination
server's copy privileges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 server's copy privileges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
14.5. Operation 63: OFFLOAD_STATUS - Poll for status of a 14.5. Operation 63: OFFLOAD_STATUS - Poll for status of a
server-side copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 server-side copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
14.6. Modification to Operation 42: EXCHANGE_ID - 14.6. Modification to Operation 42: EXCHANGE_ID -
Instantiate Client ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Instantiate Client ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
14.7. Operation 64: WRITE_PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 14.7. Operation 64: WRITE_PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
14.8. Operation 67: IO_ADVISE - Application I/O access 14.8. Operation 67: IO_ADVISE - Application I/O access
pattern hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 pattern hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
14.9. Changes to Operation 51: LAYOUTRETURN . . . . . . . . . . 81 14.9. Changes to Operation 51: LAYOUTRETURN . . . . . . . . . . 82
14.10. Operation 65: READ_PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 14.10. Operation 65: READ_PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
14.11. Operation 66: SEEK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 14.11. Operation 66: SEEK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
15. NFSv4.2 Callback Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 15. NFSv4.2 Callback Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
15.1. Operation 15: CB_OFFLOAD - Report results of an 15.1. Operation 15: CB_OFFLOAD - Report results of an
asynchronous operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 asynchronous operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
16. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 16. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Appendix B. RFC Editor Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Appendix B. RFC Editor Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1. The NFS Version 4 Minor Version 2 Protocol 1.1. The NFS Version 4 Minor Version 2 Protocol
The NFS version 4 minor version 2 (NFSv4.2) protocol is the third The NFS version 4 minor version 2 (NFSv4.2) protocol is the third
minor version of the NFS version 4 (NFSv4) protocol. The first minor minor version of the NFS version 4 (NFSv4) protocol. The first minor
version, NFSv4.0, is described in [9] and the second minor version, version, NFSv4.0, is described in [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis] and the
NFSv4.1, is described in [1]. It follows the guidelines for minor second minor version, NFSv4.1, is described in [RFC5661]. It follows
versioning that are listed in Section 11 of [9]. the guidelines for minor versioning that are listed in Section 11 of
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis].
As a minor version, NFSv4.2 is consistent with the overall goals for As a minor version, NFSv4.2 is consistent with the overall goals for
NFSv4, but extends the protocol so as to better meet those goals, NFSv4, but extends the protocol so as to better meet those goals,
based on experiences with NFSv4.1. In addition, NFSv4.2 has adopted based on experiences with NFSv4.1. In addition, NFSv4.2 has adopted
some additional goals, which motivate some of the major extensions in some additional goals, which motivate some of the major extensions in
NFSv4.2. NFSv4.2.
1.2. Scope of This Document 1.2. Scope of This Document
This document describes the NFSv4.2 protocol. With respect to This document describes the NFSv4.2 protocol. With respect to
skipping to change at page 5, line 35 skipping to change at page 5, line 36
o describe the NFSv4.0 or NFSv4.1 protocols, except where needed to o describe the NFSv4.0 or NFSv4.1 protocols, except where needed to
contrast with NFSv4.2 contrast with NFSv4.2
o modify the specification of the NFSv4.0 or NFSv4.1 protocols o modify the specification of the NFSv4.0 or NFSv4.1 protocols
o clarify the NFSv4.0 or NFSv4.1 protocols. I.e., any o clarify the NFSv4.0 or NFSv4.1 protocols. I.e., any
clarifications made here apply to NFSv4.2 and neither of the prior clarifications made here apply to NFSv4.2 and neither of the prior
protocols protocols
The full XDR for NFSv4.2 is presented in [2]. The full XDR for NFSv4.2 is presented in [4.2xdr].
1.3. NFSv4.2 Goals 1.3. NFSv4.2 Goals
The goal of the design of NFSv4.2 is to take common local file system The goal of the design of NFSv4.2 is to take common local file system
features and offer them remotely. These features might features and offer them remotely. These features might
o already be available on the servers, e.g., sparse files o already be available on the servers, e.g., sparse files
o be under development as a new standard, e.g., SEEK_HOLE and o be under development as a new standard, e.g., SEEK_HOLE and
SEEK_DATA SEEK_DATA
skipping to change at page 7, line 35 skipping to change at page 7, line 35
2. Minor Versioning 2. Minor Versioning
To address the requirement of an NFS protocol that can evolve as the To address the requirement of an NFS protocol that can evolve as the
need arises, the NFSv4 protocol contains the rules and framework to need arises, the NFSv4 protocol contains the rules and framework to
allow for future minor changes or versioning. allow for future minor changes or versioning.
The base assumption with respect to minor versioning is that any The base assumption with respect to minor versioning is that any
future accepted minor version will be documented in one or more future accepted minor version will be documented in one or more
Standards Track RFCs. Minor version 0 of the NFSv4 protocol is Standards Track RFCs. Minor version 0 of the NFSv4 protocol is
represented by [9], minor version 1 by [1], and minor version 2 by represented by [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis], minor version 1 by
this document. The COMPOUND and CB_COMPOUND procedures support the [RFC5661], and minor version 2 by this document. The COMPOUND and
encoding of the minor version being requested by the client. CB_COMPOUND procedures support the encoding of the minor version
being requested by the client.
The following items represent the basic rules for the development of The following items represent the basic rules for the development of
minor versions. Note that a future minor version may modify or add minor versions. Note that a future minor version may modify or add
to the following rules as part of the minor version definition. to the following rules as part of the minor version definition.
1. Procedures are not added or deleted. 1. Procedures are not added or deleted.
To maintain the general RPC model, NFSv4 minor versions will not To maintain the general RPC model, NFSv4 minor versions will not
add to or delete procedures from the NFS program. add to or delete procedures from the NFS program.
skipping to change at page 9, line 35 skipping to change at page 9, line 35
the request as an XDR decode error. This approach allows for the request as an XDR decode error. This approach allows for
the obsolescence of an operation while maintaining its structure the obsolescence of an operation while maintaining its structure
so that a future minor version can reintroduce the operation. so that a future minor version can reintroduce the operation.
1. Minor versions may declare that an attribute MUST NOT be 1. Minor versions may declare that an attribute MUST NOT be
implemented. implemented.
2. Minor versions may declare that a flag bit or enumeration 2. Minor versions may declare that a flag bit or enumeration
value MUST NOT be implemented. value MUST NOT be implemented.
10. Minor versions may declare an operation to be DEPRECATED, which 10. Minor versions may declare an operation to be OBSOLESCENT, which
indicates the plan to remove the operation in the next release. indicates an intention to remove the operation (i.e., make it
Such a labeling does not effect whether the operation is MANDATORY TO NOT implement) in a subsequent minor version. Such
REQUIRED or RECOMMENDED or OPTIONAL. I.e., an operation may be labeling is separate from the question of whether the operation
both REQUIRED for the given minor version and earmarked for MUST is REQUIRED or RECOMMENDED or OPTIONAL in the current minor
NOT be implemented for the next release. Note that this two version. An operation may be both REQUIRED for the given minor
minor version release approach is put in place to mitigate version and marked OBSOLESCENT, with the expectation that it
design and implementation mistakes. As such, even if an will be MANDATORY TO NOT implement in the next (or other
operation is marked DEPRECATED in a given minor release, it may subsequent) minor version.
end up not being marked as MUST NOT implement in the next minor
version.
11. Minor versions may downgrade features (i.e., operations and 11. Note that the early notification of operation obsolescence is
attributes) from REQUIRED to RECOMMENDED, or RECOMMENDED to put in place to mitigate the effects of design and
OPTIONAL. Also, if a feature was marked as DEPRECATED in a implementation mistakes, and to allow protocol development to
prior minor version, it may be downgraded from REQUIRED to adapt to unexpected changes in the pace of implementation. Even
OPTIONAL. if an operation is marked OBSOLESCENT in a given minor version,
it may end up not being marked MANDATORY TO NOT implement in the
next minor version. In unusual circumstances, it might not be
marked OBSOLESCENT in a subsequent minor version, and never
become MANDATORY TO NOT implement.
12. Minor versions may upgrade features from OPTIONAL to 12. Minor versions may downgrade features from REQUIRED to
RECOMMENDED, or RECOMMENDED to REQUIRED. RECOMMENDED, from RECOMMENDED to OPTIONAL, or from OPIONAL to
MANDATORY TO NOT implement. Also, if a feature was marked as
OBSOLESCENT in the prior minor version, it may be downgraded
from REQUIRED to OPTIONAL from RECOMMENDED to MANDATORY TO NOT
implement, or from REQUIRED to MANDATORY TO NOT implement.
13. A client and server that support minor version X SHOULD support 13. Minor versions may upgrade features from OPTIONAL to
RECOMMENDED, or RECOMMENDED to REQUIRED. Also, if a feature was
marked as OBSOLESCENT in the prior minor version, it may be
upgraded to not be OBSOLESCENT.
14. A client and server that support minor version X SHOULD support
minor versions 0 through X-1 as well. minor versions 0 through X-1 as well.
14. Except for infrastructural changes, a minor version must not 15. Except for infrastructural changes, a minor version must not
introduce REQUIRED new features. introduce REQUIRED new features.
This rule allows for the introduction of new functionality and This rule allows for the introduction of new functionality and
forces the use of implementation experience before designating a forces the use of implementation experience before designating a
feature as REQUIRED. On the other hand, some classes of feature as REQUIRED. On the other hand, some classes of
features are infrastructural and have broad effects. Allowing features are infrastructural and have broad effects. Allowing
infrastructural features to be RECOMMENDED or OPTIONAL infrastructural features to be RECOMMENDED or OPTIONAL
complicates implementation of the minor version. complicates implementation of the minor version.
15. A client MUST NOT attempt to use a stateid, filehandle, or 16. A client MUST NOT attempt to use a stateid, filehandle, or
similar returned object from the COMPOUND procedure with minor similar returned object from the COMPOUND procedure with minor
version X for another COMPOUND procedure with minor version Y, version X for another COMPOUND procedure with minor version Y,
where X != Y. where X != Y.
3. Server-side Copy 3. Server-side Copy
3.1. Introduction 3.1. Introduction
The server-side copy feature provides a mechanism for the NFS client The server-side copy feature provides a mechanism for the NFS client
to perform a file copy on the server without the data being to perform a file copy on the server without the data being
skipping to change at page 11, line 22 skipping to change at page 11, line 33
server are the same server. Therefore in the context of an intra- server are the same server. Therefore in the context of an intra-
server copy, the terms source server and destination server refer to server copy, the terms source server and destination server refer to
the single server performing the copy. the single server performing the copy.
The operations described below are designed to copy files. Other The operations described below are designed to copy files. Other
file system objects can be copied by building on these operations or file system objects can be copied by building on these operations or
using other techniques. For example if the user wishes to copy a using other techniques. For example if the user wishes to copy a
directory, the client can synthesize a directory copy by first directory, the client can synthesize a directory copy by first
creating the destination directory and then copying the source creating the destination directory and then copying the source
directory's files to the new destination directory. If the user directory's files to the new destination directory. If the user
wishes to copy a namespace junction [10] [11], the client can use the wishes to copy a namespace junction [FEDFS-NSDB] [FEDFS-ADMIN], the
ONC RPC Federated Filesystem protocol [11] to perform the copy. client can use the ONC RPC Federated Filesystem protocol
Specifically the client can determine the source junction's [FEDFS-ADMIN] to perform the copy. Specifically the client can
attributes using the FEDFS_LOOKUP_FSN procedure and create a determine the source junction's attributes using the FEDFS_LOOKUP_FSN
duplicate junction using the FEDFS_CREATE_JUNCTION procedure. procedure and create a duplicate junction using the
FEDFS_CREATE_JUNCTION procedure.
For the inter-server copy, the operations are defined to be For the inter-server copy, the operations are defined to be
compatible with the traditional copy authentication approach. The compatible with the traditional copy authentication approach. The
client and user are authorized at the source for reading. Then they client and user are authorized at the source for reading. Then they
are authorized at the destination for writing. are authorized at the destination for writing.
3.2.1. Overview of Copy Operations 3.2.1. Overview of Copy Operations
COPY_NOTIFY: For inter-server copies, the client sends this COPY_NOTIFY: For inter-server copies, the client sends this
operation to the source server to notify it of a future file copy operation to the source server to notify it of a future file copy
skipping to change at page 17, line 41 skipping to change at page 18, line 41
of the source file to the destination file by replicating the file of the source file to the destination file by replicating the file
system formats at the block level. Another possibility is that the system formats at the block level. Another possibility is that the
source and destination might be two nodes sharing a common storage source and destination might be two nodes sharing a common storage
area network, and thus there is no need to copy any data at all, and area network, and thus there is no need to copy any data at all, and
instead ownership of the file and its contents might simply be re- instead ownership of the file and its contents might simply be re-
assigned to the destination. To allow for these possibilities, the assigned to the destination. To allow for these possibilities, the
destination server is allowed to use a server-to-server copy protocol destination server is allowed to use a server-to-server copy protocol
of its choice. of its choice.
In a heterogeneous environment, using a protocol other than NFSv4.x In a heterogeneous environment, using a protocol other than NFSv4.x
(e.g., HTTP [12] or FTP [13]) presents some challenges. In (e.g., HTTP [RFC2616] or FTP [RFC0959]) presents some challenges. In
particular, the destination server is presented with the challenge of particular, the destination server is presented with the challenge of
accessing the source file given only an NFSv4.x filehandle. accessing the source file given only an NFSv4.x filehandle.
One option for protocols that identify source files with path names One option for protocols that identify source files with path names
is to use an ASCII hexadecimal representation of the source is to use an ASCII hexadecimal representation of the source
filehandle as the file name. filehandle as the file name.
Another option for the source server is to use URLs to direct the Another option for the source server is to use URLs to direct the
destination server to a specialized service. For example, the destination server to a specialized service. For example, the
response to COPY_NOTIFY could include the URL response to COPY_NOTIFY could include the URL
skipping to change at page 19, line 27 skipping to change at page 20, line 27
}; };
union netloc4 switch (netloc_type4 nl_type) { union netloc4 switch (netloc_type4 nl_type) {
case NL4_NAME: utf8str_cis nl_name; case NL4_NAME: utf8str_cis nl_name;
case NL4_URL: utf8str_cis nl_url; case NL4_URL: utf8str_cis nl_url;
case NL4_NETADDR: netaddr4 nl_addr; case NL4_NETADDR: netaddr4 nl_addr;
}; };
If the netloc4 is of type NL4_NAME, the nl_name field MUST be If the netloc4 is of type NL4_NAME, the nl_name field MUST be
specified as a UTF-8 string. The nl_name is expected to be resolved specified as a UTF-8 string. The nl_name is expected to be resolved
to a network address via DNS, LDAP, NIS, /etc/hosts, or some other to a network address via DNS, LDAP, NIS, /etc/hosts, or some other
means. If the netloc4 is of type NL4_URL, a server URL [3] means. If the netloc4 is of type NL4_URL, a server URL [RFC3986]
appropriate for the server-to-server copy operation is specified as a appropriate for the server-to-server copy operation is specified as a
UTF-8 string. If the netloc4 is of type NL4_NETADDR, the nl_addr UTF-8 string. If the netloc4 is of type NL4_NETADDR, the nl_addr
field MUST contain a valid netaddr4 as defined in Section 3.3.9 of field MUST contain a valid netaddr4 as defined in Section 3.3.9 of
[1]. [RFC5661].
When netloc4 values are used for an inter-server copy as shown in When netloc4 values are used for an inter-server copy as shown in
Figure 3, their values may be evaluated on the source server, Figure 3, their values may be evaluated on the source server,
destination server, and client. The network environment in which destination server, and client. The network environment in which
these systems operate should be configured so that the netloc4 values these systems operate should be configured so that the netloc4 values
are interpreted as intended on each system. are interpreted as intended on each system.
3.3.2. Offload Stateids 3.3.2. Copy Offload Stateids
A server may perform a copy offload operation asynchronously. An A server may perform a copy offload operation asynchronously. An
asynchronous copy is tracked using a offload stateid. Copy offload asynchronous copy is tracked using a copy offload stateid. Copy
stateids are included in the COPY, OFFLOAD_ABORT, OFFLOAD_STATUS, and offload stateids are included in the COPY, OFFLOAD_ABORT,
CB_OFFLOAD operations. OFFLOAD_STATUS, and CB_OFFLOAD operations.
Section 8.2.4 of [1] specifies that stateids are valid until either Section 8.2.4 of [RFC5661] specifies that stateids are valid until
(A) the client or server restart or (B) the client returns the either (A) the client or server restart or (B) the client returns the
resource. resource.
A offload stateid will be valid until either (A) the client or server A copy offload stateid will be valid until either (A) the client or
restarts or (B) the client returns the resource by issuing a server restarts or (B) the client returns the resource by issuing a
OFFLOAD_ABORT operation or the client replies to a CB_OFFLOAD OFFLOAD_ABORT operation or the client replies to a CB_OFFLOAD
operation. operation.
A offload stateid's seqid MUST NOT be 0. In the context of a copy A copy offload stateid's seqid MUST NOT be 0. In the context of a
offload operation, it is ambiguous to indicate the most recent copy copy offload operation, it is ambiguous to indicate the most recent
offload operation using a stateid with seqid of 0. Therefore a copy copy offload operation using a stateid with seqid of 0. Therefore a
offload stateid with seqid of 0 MUST be considered invalid. copy offload stateid with seqid of 0 MUST be considered invalid.
3.4. Security Considerations 3.4. Security Considerations
The security considerations pertaining to NFSv4 [9] apply to this The security considerations pertaining to NFSv4
chapter. [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis] apply to this chapter.
The standard security mechanisms provide by NFSv4 [9] may be used to The standard security mechanisms provide by NFSv4
secure the protocol described in this chapter. [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis] may be used to secure the protocol
described in this chapter.
NFSv4 clients and servers supporting the inter-server copy operations NFSv4 clients and servers supporting the inter-server copy operations
described in this chapter are REQUIRED to implement [4], including described in this chapter are REQUIRED to implement [rpcsecgssv3],
the RPCSEC_GSSv3 privileges copy_from_auth and copy_to_auth. If the including the RPCSEC_GSSv3 privileges copy_from_auth and
server-to-server copy protocol is ONC RPC based, the servers are also copy_to_auth. If the server-to-server copy protocol is ONC RPC
REQUIRED to implement the RPCSEC_GSSv3 privilege copy_confirm_auth. based, the servers are also REQUIRED to implement the RPCSEC_GSSv3
These requirements to implement are not requirements to use. NFSv4 privilege copy_confirm_auth. These requirements to implement are not
clients and servers are RECOMMENDED to use [4] to secure server-side requirements to use. NFSv4 clients and servers are RECOMMENDED to
copy operations. use [rpcsecgssv3] to secure server-side copy operations.
3.4.1. Inter-Server Copy Security 3.4.1. Inter-Server Copy Security
3.4.1.1. Requirements for Secure Inter-Server Copy 3.4.1.1. Requirements for Secure Inter-Server Copy
Inter-server copy is driven by several requirements: Inter-server copy is driven by several requirements:
o The specification MUST NOT mandate an inter-server copy protocol. o The specification MUST NOT mandate an inter-server copy protocol.
There are many ways to copy data. Some will be more optimal than There are many ways to copy data. Some will be more optimal than
others depending on the identities of the source server and others depending on the identities of the source server and
skipping to change at page 21, line 40 skipping to change at page 22, line 41
An approach that sends delegated credentials of the client's user An approach that sends delegated credentials of the client's user
principal to the destination server is not used for the following principal to the destination server is not used for the following
reasons. If the client's user delegated its credentials, the reasons. If the client's user delegated its credentials, the
destination would authenticate as the user principal. If the destination would authenticate as the user principal. If the
destination were using the NFSv4 protocol to perform the copy, then destination were using the NFSv4 protocol to perform the copy, then
the source server would authenticate the destination server as the the source server would authenticate the destination server as the
user principal, and the file copy would securely proceed. However, user principal, and the file copy would securely proceed. However,
this approach would allow the destination server to copy other files. this approach would allow the destination server to copy other files.
The user principal would have to trust the destination server to not The user principal would have to trust the destination server to not
do so. This is counter to the requirements, and therefore is not do so. This is counter to the requirements, and therefore is not
considered. Instead an approach using RPCSEC_GSSv3 [4] privileges is considered. Instead an approach using RPCSEC_GSSv3 [rpcsecgssv3]
proposed. privileges is proposed.
One of the stated applications of the proposed RPCSEC_GSSv3 protocol One of the stated applications of the proposed RPCSEC_GSSv3 protocol
is compound client host and user authentication [+ privilege is compound client host and user authentication [+ privilege
assertion]. For inter-server file copy, we require compound NFS assertion]. For inter-server file copy, we require compound NFS
server host and user authentication [+ privilege assertion]. The server host and user authentication [+ privilege assertion]. The
distinction between the two is one without meaning. distinction between the two is one without meaning.
RPCSEC_GSSv3 introduces the notion of privileges. We define three RPCSEC_GSSv3 introduces the notion of privileges. We define three
privileges: privileges:
skipping to change at page 26, line 46 skipping to change at page 27, line 46
3.4.1.2.4. Securing Non ONC RPC Server-to-Server Copy Protocols 3.4.1.2.4. Securing Non ONC RPC Server-to-Server Copy Protocols
If the destination won't be using ONC RPC to copy the data, then the If the destination won't be using ONC RPC to copy the data, then the
source and destination are using an unspecified copy protocol. The source and destination are using an unspecified copy protocol. The
destination could use the shared secret and the NFSv4 user id to destination could use the shared secret and the NFSv4 user id to
prove to the source server that the user principal has authorized the prove to the source server that the user principal has authorized the
copy. copy.
For protocols that authenticate user names with passwords (e.g., HTTP For protocols that authenticate user names with passwords (e.g., HTTP
[12] and FTP [13]), the NFSv4 user id could be used as the user name, [RFC2616] and FTP [RFC0959]), the NFSv4 user id could be used as the
and an ASCII hexadecimal representation of the RPCSEC_GSSv3 shared user name, and an ASCII hexadecimal representation of the
secret could be used as the user password or as input into non- RPCSEC_GSSv3 shared secret could be used as the user password or as
password authentication methods like CHAP [14]. input into non-password authentication methods like CHAP [RFC1994].
3.4.1.3. Inter-Server Copy via ONC RPC but without RPCSEC_GSSv3 3.4.1.3. Inter-Server Copy via ONC RPC but without RPCSEC_GSSv3
ONC RPC security flavors other than RPCSEC_GSSv3 MAY be used with the ONC RPC security flavors other than RPCSEC_GSSv3 MAY be used with the
server-side copy offload operations described in this chapter. In server-side copy offload operations described in this chapter. In
particular, host-based ONC RPC security flavors such as AUTH_NONE and particular, host-based ONC RPC security flavors such as AUTH_NONE and
AUTH_SYS MAY be used. If a host-based security flavor is used, a AUTH_SYS MAY be used. If a host-based security flavor is used, a
minimal level of protection for the server-to-server copy protocol is minimal level of protection for the server-to-server copy protocol is
possible. possible.
skipping to change at page 28, line 22 skipping to change at page 29, line 22
server identified in the COPY_NOTIFY. This random number technique server identified in the COPY_NOTIFY. This random number technique
only provides initial authentication of the destination server, and only provides initial authentication of the destination server, and
cannot defend against man-in-the-middle attacks after authentication cannot defend against man-in-the-middle attacks after authentication
or an eavesdropper that observes the random number on the wire. or an eavesdropper that observes the random number on the wire.
Other secure communication techniques (e.g., IPsec) are necessary to Other secure communication techniques (e.g., IPsec) are necessary to
block these attacks. block these attacks.
3.4.1.4. Inter-Server Copy without ONC RPC and RPCSEC_GSSv3 3.4.1.4. Inter-Server Copy without ONC RPC and RPCSEC_GSSv3
The same techniques as Section 3.4.1.3, using unique URLs for each The same techniques as Section 3.4.1.3, using unique URLs for each
destination server, can be used for other protocols (e.g., HTTP [12] destination server, can be used for other protocols (e.g., HTTP
and FTP [13]) as well. [RFC2616] and FTP [RFC0959]) as well.
4. Support for Application IO Hints 4. Support for Application IO Hints
Applications can issue client I/O hints via posix_fadvise() [5] to Applications can issue client I/O hints via posix_fadvise()
the NFS client. While this can help the NFS client optimize I/O and [posix_fadvise] to the NFS client. While this can help the NFS
caching for a file, it does not allow the NFS server and its exported client optimize I/O and caching for a file, it does not allow the NFS
file system to do likewise. We add an IO_ADVISE procedure server and its exported file system to do likewise. We add an
(Section 14.8) to communicate the client file access patterns to the IO_ADVISE procedure (Section 14.8) to communicate the client file
NFS server. The NFS server upon receiving a IO_ADVISE operation MAY access patterns to the NFS server. The NFS server upon receiving a
choose to alter its I/O and caching behavior, but is under no IO_ADVISE operation MAY choose to alter its I/O and caching behavior,
obligation to do so. but is under no obligation to do so.
Application specific NFS clients such as those used by hypervisors Application specific NFS clients such as those used by hypervisors
and databases can also leverage application hints to communicate and databases can also leverage application hints to communicate
their specialized requirements. their specialized requirements.
5. Sparse Files 5. Sparse Files
5.1. Introduction 5.1. Introduction
A sparse file is a common way of representing a large file without A sparse file is a common way of representing a large file without
skipping to change at page 29, line 50 skipping to change at page 30, line 50
unallocated region of the file. unallocated region of the file.
Hole Threshold: The minimum length of a Hole as determined by the Hole Threshold: The minimum length of a Hole as determined by the
server. If a server chooses to define a Hole Threshold, then it server. If a server chooses to define a Hole Threshold, then it
would not return hole information about holes with a length would not return hole information about holes with a length
shorter than the Hole Threshold. shorter than the Hole Threshold.
5.3. New Operations 5.3. New Operations
READ_PLUS and WRITE_PLUS are new variants of the NFSv4.1 READ and READ_PLUS and WRITE_PLUS are new variants of the NFSv4.1 READ and
WRITE operations [1]. Besides being able to support all of the data WRITE operations [RFC5661]. Besides being able to support all of the
semantics of those operations, they can also be used by the client data semantics of those operations, they can also be used by the
and server to efficiently transfer both holes and ADHs (see client and server to efficiently transfer both holes and ADHs (see
Section 7.1.1). As both READ and WRITE are inefficient for transfer Section 7.1.1). As both READ and WRITE are inefficient for transfer
of sparse sections of the file, they are marked as OBSOLESCENT in of sparse sections of the file, they are marked as OBSOLESCENT in
NFSv4.2. Instead, a client should utilize READ_PLUS and WRITE_PLUS. NFSv4.2. Instead, a client should utilize READ_PLUS and WRITE_PLUS.
Note that as the client has no a priori knowledge of whether either Note that as the client has no a priori knowledge of whether either
an ADH or a hole is present or not, if it supports these operations an ADH or a hole is present or not, if it supports these operations
and so does the server, then it should always use these operations. and so does the server, then it should always use these operations.
5.3.1. READ_PLUS 5.3.1. READ_PLUS
For holes, READ_PLUS extends the response to avoid returning data for For holes, READ_PLUS extends the response to avoid returning data for
skipping to change at page 31, line 24 skipping to change at page 32, line 24
Currently, in order to achieve such a guarantee, applications zero Currently, in order to achieve such a guarantee, applications zero
the entire file. The initial zeroing allocates the backing blocks the entire file. The initial zeroing allocates the backing blocks
and all subsequent writes are overwrites of already allocated blocks. and all subsequent writes are overwrites of already allocated blocks.
This approach is not only inefficient in terms of the amount of I/O This approach is not only inefficient in terms of the amount of I/O
done, it is also not guaranteed to work on file systems that are log done, it is also not guaranteed to work on file systems that are log
structured or deduplicated. An efficient way of guaranteeing space structured or deduplicated. An efficient way of guaranteeing space
reservation would be beneficial to such applications. reservation would be beneficial to such applications.
We define a "reservation" as being the combination of the We define a "reservation" as being the combination of the
space_reserved attribute (see Section 12.2.4) and the size attribute space_reserved attribute (see Section 12.2.4) and the size attribute
(see Section 5.8.1.5 of [1]). If space_reserved attribute is set on (see Section 5.8.1.5 of [RFC5661]). If space_reserved attribute is
a file, it is guaranteed that writes that do not grow the file past set on a file, it is guaranteed that writes that do not grow the file
the size will not fail with NFS4ERR_NOSPC. Once the size is changed, past the size will not fail with NFS4ERR_NOSPC. Once the size is
then the reservation is changed to that new size. changed, then the reservation is changed to that new size.
Another useful feature is the ability to report the number of blocks Another useful feature is the ability to report the number of blocks
that would be freed when a file is deleted. Currently, NFS reports that would be freed when a file is deleted. Currently, NFS reports
two size attributes: two size attributes:
size The logical file size of the file. size The logical file size of the file.
space_used The size in bytes that the file occupies on disk space_used The size in bytes that the file occupies on disk
While these attributes are sufficient for space accounting in While these attributes are sufficient for space accounting in
skipping to change at page 33, line 6 skipping to change at page 34, line 6
The addition of this problem does not solve the problem of space The addition of this problem does not solve the problem of space
being over-reported. However, over-reporting is better than under- being over-reported. However, over-reporting is better than under-
reporting. reporting.
7. Application Data Hole Support 7. Application Data Hole Support
At the OS level, files are contained on disk blocks. Applications At the OS level, files are contained on disk blocks. Applications
are also free to impose structure on the data contained in a file and are also free to impose structure on the data contained in a file and
we can define an Application Data Block (ADB) to be such a structure. we can define an Application Data Block (ADB) to be such a structure.
From the application's viewpoint, it only wants to handle ADBs and From the application's viewpoint, it only wants to handle ADBs and
not raw bytes (see [15]). An ADB is typically comprised of two not raw bytes (see [Strohm11]). An ADB is typically comprised of two
sections: a header and data. The header describes the sections: a header and data. The header describes the
characteristics of the block and can provide a means to detect characteristics of the block and can provide a means to detect
corruption in the data payload. The data section is typically corruption in the data payload. The data section is typically
initialized to all zeros. initialized to all zeros.
The format of the header is application specific, but there are two The format of the header is application specific, but there are two
main components typically encountered: main components typically encountered:
1. A logical block number which allows the application to determine 1. A logical block number which allows the application to determine
which data block is being referenced. This is useful when the which data block is being referenced. This is useful when the
client is not storing the blocks in contiguous memory. client is not storing the blocks in contiguous memory.
2. Fields to describe the state of the ADB and a means to detect 2. Fields to describe the state of the ADB and a means to detect
block corruption. For both pieces of data, a useful property is block corruption. For both pieces of data, a useful property is
that allowed values be unique in that if passed across the that allowed values be unique in that if passed across the
network, corruption due to translation between big and little network, corruption due to translation between big and little
endian architectures are detectable. For example, 0xF0DEDEF0 has endian architectures are detectable. For example, 0xF0DEDEF0 has
the same bit pattern in both architectures. the same bit pattern in both architectures.
Applications already impose structures on files [15] and detect Applications already impose structures on files [Strohm11] and detect
corruption in data blocks [16]. What they are not able to do is corruption in data blocks [Ashdown08]. What they are not able to do
efficiently transfer and store ADBs. To initialize a file with ADBs, is efficiently transfer and store ADBs. To initialize a file with
the client must send the full ADB to the server and that must be ADBs, the client must send the full ADB to the server and that must
stored on the server. be stored on the server.
In this section, we are going to define an Application Data Hole In this section, we are going to define an Application Data Hole
(ADH), which is a generic framework for transferring the ADB, present (ADH), which is a generic framework for transferring the ADB, present
one approach to detecting corruption in a given ADH implementation, one approach to detecting corruption in a given ADH implementation,
and describe the model for how the client and server can support and describe the model for how the client and server can support
efficient initialization of ADHs, reading of ADH holes, punching ADH efficient initialization of ADHs, reading of ADH holes, punching ADH
holes in a file, and space reservation. We define the ADHN to be the holes in a file, and space reservation. We define the ADHN to be the
Application Data Hole Number, which is the logical block number Application Data Hole Number, which is the logical block number
discussed earlier. discussed earlier.
7.1. Generic Framework 7.1. Generic Framework
We want the representation of the ADH to be flexible enough to We want the representation of the ADH to be flexible enough to
support many different applications. The most basic approach is no support many different applications. The most basic approach is no
imposition of a block at all, which means we are working with the raw imposition of a block at all, which means we are working with the raw
bytes. Such an approach would be useful for storing holes, punching bytes. Such an approach would be useful for storing holes, punching
holes, etc. In more complex deployments, a server might be holes, etc. In more complex deployments, a server might be
supporting multiple applications, each with their own definition of supporting multiple applications, each with their own definition of
the ADH. One might store the ADHN at the start of the block and then the ADH. One might store the ADHN at the start of the block and then
have a guard pattern to detect corruption [17]. The next might store have a guard pattern to detect corruption [McDougall07]. The next
the ADHN at an offset of 100 bytes within the block and have no guard might store the ADHN at an offset of 100 bytes within the block and
pattern at all, i.e., existing applications might already have well have no guard pattern at all, i.e., existing applications might
defined formats for their data blocks. already have well defined formats for their data blocks.
The guard pattern can be used to represent the state of the block, to The guard pattern can be used to represent the state of the block, to
protect against corruption, or both. Again, it needs to be able to protect against corruption, or both. Again, it needs to be able to
be placed anywhere within the ADH. be placed anywhere within the ADH.
We need to be able to represent the starting offset of the block and We need to be able to represent the starting offset of the block and
the size of the block. Note that nothing prevents the application the size of the block. Note that nothing prevents the application
from defining different sized blocks in a file. from defining different sized blocks in a file.
7.1.1. Data Hole Representation 7.1.1. Data Hole Representation
skipping to change at page 35, line 36 skipping to change at page 36, line 36
0xcafedead - This is the DATA state and indicates that real data 0xcafedead - This is the DATA state and indicates that real data
has been written to this block. has been written to this block.
0xe4e5c001 - This is the INDIRECT state and indicates that the 0xe4e5c001 - This is the INDIRECT state and indicates that the
block contains block counter numbers that are chained off of this block contains block counter numbers that are chained off of this
block. block.
0xba1ed4a3 - This is the INVALID state and indicates that the block 0xba1ed4a3 - This is the INVALID state and indicates that the block
contains data whose contents are garbage. contains data whose contents are garbage.
Finally, it also defines an 8 byte checksum [18] starting at byte 16 Finally, it also defines an 8 byte checksum [Baira08] starting at
which applies to the remaining contents of the block. If the state byte 16 which applies to the remaining contents of the block. If the
is FREE, then that checksum is trivially zero. As such, the state is FREE, then that checksum is trivially zero. As such, the
application has no need to transfer the checksum implicitly inside application has no need to transfer the checksum implicitly inside
the ADH - it need not make the transfer layer aware of the fact that the ADH - it need not make the transfer layer aware of the fact that
there is a checksum (see [16] for an example of checksums used to there is a checksum (see [Ashdown08] for an example of checksums used
detect corruption in application data blocks). to detect corruption in application data blocks).
Corruption in each ADH can thus be detected: Corruption in each ADH can thus be detected:
o If the guard pattern is anything other than one of the allowed o If the guard pattern is anything other than one of the allowed
values, including all zeros. values, including all zeros.
o If the guard pattern is FREE and any other byte in the remainder o If the guard pattern is FREE and any other byte in the remainder
of the ADH is anything other than zero. of the ADH is anything other than zero.
o If the guard pattern is anything other than FREE, then if the o If the guard pattern is anything other than FREE, then if the
skipping to change at page 37, line 14 skipping to change at page 38, line 14
8. Labeled NFS 8. Labeled NFS
8.1. Introduction 8.1. Introduction
Access control models such as Unix permissions or Access Control Access control models such as Unix permissions or Access Control
Lists are commonly referred to as Discretionary Access Control (DAC) Lists are commonly referred to as Discretionary Access Control (DAC)
models. These systems base their access decisions on user identity models. These systems base their access decisions on user identity
and resource ownership. In contrast Mandatory Access Control (MAC) and resource ownership. In contrast Mandatory Access Control (MAC)
models base their access control decisions on the label on the models base their access control decisions on the label on the
subject (usually a process) and the object it wishes to access [19]. subject (usually a process) and the object it wishes to access
These labels may contain user identity information but usually [Haynes12]. These labels may contain user identity information but
contain additional information. In DAC systems users are free to usually contain additional information. In DAC systems users are
specify the access rules for resources that they own. MAC models free to specify the access rules for resources that they own. MAC
base their security decisions on a system wide policy established by models base their security decisions on a system wide policy
an administrator or organization which the users do not have the established by an administrator or organization which the users do
ability to override. In this section, we add a MAC model to NFSv4.2. not have the ability to override. In this section, we add a MAC
model to NFSv4.2.
The first change necessary is to devise a method for transporting and The first change necessary is to devise a method for transporting and
storing security label data on NFSv4 file objects. Security labels storing security label data on NFSv4 file objects. Security labels
have several semantics that are met by NFSv4 recommended attributes have several semantics that are met by NFSv4 recommended attributes
such as the ability to set the label value upon object creation. such as the ability to set the label value upon object creation.
Access control on these attributes are done through a combination of Access control on these attributes are done through a combination of
two mechanisms. As with other recommended attributes on file objects two mechanisms. As with other recommended attributes on file objects
the usual DAC checks (ACLs and permission bits) will be performed to the usual DAC checks (ACLs and permission bits) will be performed to
ensure that proper file ownership is enforced. In addition a MAC ensure that proper file ownership is enforced. In addition a MAC
system MAY be employed on the client, server, or both to enforce system MAY be employed on the client, server, or both to enforce
skipping to change at page 37, line 44 skipping to change at page 38, line 45
The second change is to provide methods for the client to determine The second change is to provide methods for the client to determine
if the security label has changed. A client which needs to know if a if the security label has changed. A client which needs to know if a
label is going to change SHOULD request a delegation on that file. label is going to change SHOULD request a delegation on that file.
In order to change the security label, the server will have to recall In order to change the security label, the server will have to recall
all delegations. This will inform the client of the change. If a all delegations. This will inform the client of the change. If a
client wants to detect if the label has changed, it MAY use VERIFY client wants to detect if the label has changed, it MAY use VERIFY
and NVERIFY on FATTR4_CHANGE_SEC_LABEL to detect that the and NVERIFY on FATTR4_CHANGE_SEC_LABEL to detect that the
FATTR4_SEC_LABEL has been modified. FATTR4_SEC_LABEL has been modified.
The final change necessary is a modification to the RPC layer used in The final change necessary is a modification to the RPC layer used in
NFSv4 in the form of a new version of the RPCSEC_GSS [6] framework. NFSv4 in the form of a new version of the RPCSEC_GSS [RFC2203]
In order for an NFSv4 server to apply MAC checks it must obtain framework. In order for an NFSv4 server to apply MAC checks it must
additional information from the client. Several methods were obtain additional information from the client. Several methods were
explored for performing this and it was decided that the best explored for performing this and it was decided that the best
approach was to incorporate the ability to make security attribute approach was to incorporate the ability to make security attribute
assertions through the RPC mechanism. RPCSECGSSv3 [4] outlines a assertions through the RPC mechanism. RPCSECGSSv3 [rpcsecgssv3]
method to assert additional security information such as security outlines a method to assert additional security information such as
labels on gss context creation and have that data bound to all RPC security labels on gss context creation and have that data bound to
requests that make use of that context. all RPC requests that make use of that context.
8.2. Definitions 8.2. Definitions
Label Format Specifier (LFS): is an identifier used by the client to Label Format Specifier (LFS): is an identifier used by the client to
establish the syntactic format of the security label and the establish the syntactic format of the security label and the
semantic meaning of its components. These specifiers exist in a semantic meaning of its components. These specifiers exist in a
registry associated with documents describing the format and registry associated with documents describing the format and
semantics of the label. semantics of the label.
Label Format Registry: is the IANA registry containing all Label Format Registry: is the IANA registry containing all
skipping to change at page 38, line 37 skipping to change at page 39, line 38
access to an object. access to an object.
MAC-Aware: is a server which can transmit and store object labels. MAC-Aware: is a server which can transmit and store object labels.
MAC-Functional: is a client or server which is Labeled NFS enabled. MAC-Functional: is a client or server which is Labeled NFS enabled.
Such a system can interpret labels and apply policies based on the Such a system can interpret labels and apply policies based on the
security system. security system.
Multi-Level Security (MLS): is a traditional model where objects are Multi-Level Security (MLS): is a traditional model where objects are
given a sensitivity level (Unclassified, Secret, Top Secret, etc) given a sensitivity level (Unclassified, Secret, Top Secret, etc)
and a category set [20]. and a category set [MLS].
8.3. MAC Security Attribute 8.3. MAC Security Attribute
MAC models base access decisions on security attributes bound to MAC models base access decisions on security attributes bound to
subjects and objects. This information can range from a user subjects and objects. This information can range from a user
identity for an identity based MAC model, sensitivity levels for identity for an identity based MAC model, sensitivity levels for
Multi-level security, or a type for Type Enforcement. These models Multi-level security, or a type for Type Enforcement. These models
base their decisions on different criteria but the semantics of the base their decisions on different criteria but the semantics of the
security attribute remain the same. The semantics required by the security attribute remain the same. The semantics required by the
security attributes are listed below: security attributes are listed below:
skipping to change at page 39, line 15 skipping to change at page 40, line 20
o MUST provide the ability to enforce access control decisions both o MUST provide the ability to enforce access control decisions both
on the client and the server. on the client and the server.
o MUST NOT expose an object to either the client or server name o MUST NOT expose an object to either the client or server name
space before its security information has been bound to it. space before its security information has been bound to it.
NFSv4 implements the security attribute as a recommended attribute. NFSv4 implements the security attribute as a recommended attribute.
These attributes have a fixed format and semantics, which conflicts These attributes have a fixed format and semantics, which conflicts
with the flexible nature of the security attribute. To resolve this with the flexible nature of the security attribute. To resolve this
the security attribute consists of two components. The first the security attribute consists of two components. The first
component is a LFS as defined in [21] to allow for interoperability component is a LFS as defined in [Quigley11] to allow for
between MAC mechanisms. The second component is an opaque field interoperability between MAC mechanisms. The second component is an
which is the actual security attribute data. To allow for various opaque field which is the actual security attribute data. To allow
MAC models, NFSv4 should be used solely as a transport mechanism for for various MAC models, NFSv4 should be used solely as a transport
the security attribute. It is the responsibility of the endpoints to mechanism for the security attribute. It is the responsibility of
consume the security attribute and make access decisions based on the endpoints to consume the security attribute and make access
their respective models. In addition, creation of objects through decisions based on their respective models. In addition, creation of
OPEN and CREATE allows for the security attribute to be specified objects through OPEN and CREATE allows for the security attribute to
upon creation. By providing an atomic create and set operation for be specified upon creation. By providing an atomic create and set
the security attribute it is possible to enforce the second and operation for the security attribute it is possible to enforce the
fourth requirements. The recommended attribute FATTR4_SEC_LABEL (see second and fourth requirements. The recommended attribute
Section 12.2.2) will be used to satisfy this requirement. FATTR4_SEC_LABEL (see Section 12.2.2) will be used to satisfy this
requirement.
8.3.1. Delegations 8.3.1. Delegations
In the event that a security attribute is changed on the server while In the event that a security attribute is changed on the server while
a client holds a delegation on the file, both the server and the a client holds a delegation on the file, both the server and the
client MUST follow the NFSv4.1 protocol (see Chapter 10 of [1]) with client MUST follow the NFSv4.1 protocol (see Chapter 10 of [RFC5661])
respect to attribute changes. It SHOULD flush all changes back to with respect to attribute changes. It SHOULD flush all changes back
the server and relinquish the delegation. to the server and relinquish the delegation.
8.3.2. Permission Checking 8.3.2. Permission Checking
It is not feasible to enumerate all possible MAC models and even It is not feasible to enumerate all possible MAC models and even
levels of protection within a subset of these models. This means levels of protection within a subset of these models. This means
that the NFSv4 client and servers cannot be expected to directly make that the NFSv4 client and servers cannot be expected to directly make
access control decisions based on the security attribute. Instead access control decisions based on the security attribute. Instead
NFSv4 should defer permission checking on this attribute to the host NFSv4 should defer permission checking on this attribute to the host
system. These checks are performed in addition to existing DAC and system. These checks are performed in addition to existing DAC and
ACL checks outlined in the NFSv4 protocol. Section 8.6 gives a ACL checks outlined in the NFSv4 protocol. Section 8.6 gives a
skipping to change at page 41, line 9 skipping to change at page 42, line 14
8.4. pNFS Considerations 8.4. pNFS Considerations
This section examines the issues in deploying Labeled NFS in a pNFS This section examines the issues in deploying Labeled NFS in a pNFS
community of servers. community of servers.
8.4.1. MAC Label Checks 8.4.1. MAC Label Checks
The new FATTR4_SEC_LABEL attribute is metadata information and as The new FATTR4_SEC_LABEL attribute is metadata information and as
such the DS is not aware of the value contained on the MDS. such the DS is not aware of the value contained on the MDS.
Fortunately, the NFSv4.1 protocol [1] already has provisions for Fortunately, the NFSv4.1 protocol [RFC5661] already has provisions
doing access level checks from the DS to the MDS. In order for the for doing access level checks from the DS to the MDS. In order for
DS to validate the subject label presented by the client, it SHOULD the DS to validate the subject label presented by the client, it
utilize this mechanism. SHOULD utilize this mechanism.
8.5. Discovery of Server Labeled NFS Support 8.5. Discovery of Server Labeled NFS Support
The server can easily determine that a client supports Labeled NFS The server can easily determine that a client supports Labeled NFS
when it queries for the FATTR4_SEC_LABEL label for an object. Note when it queries for the FATTR4_SEC_LABEL label for an object. Note
that it cannot assume that the presence of RPCSEC_GSSv3 indicates that it cannot assume that the presence of RPCSEC_GSSv3 indicates
Labeled NFS support. The client might need to discover which LFS the Labeled NFS support. The client might need to discover which LFS the
server supports. server supports.
A server which supports Labeled NFS MUST allow a client with any A server which supports Labeled NFS MUST allow a client with any
skipping to change at page 42, line 7 skipping to change at page 43, line 14
8.6.1. Full Mode 8.6.1. Full Mode
Full mode environments consist of MAC-Functional NFSv4 servers and Full mode environments consist of MAC-Functional NFSv4 servers and
clients and may be composed of mixed MAC models and policies. The clients and may be composed of mixed MAC models and policies. The
system requires that both the client and server have an opportunity system requires that both the client and server have an opportunity
to perform an access control check based on all relevant information to perform an access control check based on all relevant information
within the network. The file object security attribute is provided within the network. The file object security attribute is provided
using the mechanism described in Section 8.3. The security attribute using the mechanism described in Section 8.3. The security attribute
of the subject making the request is transported at the RPC layer of the subject making the request is transported at the RPC layer
using the mechanism described in RPCSECGSSv3 [4]. using the mechanism described in RPCSECGSSv3 [rpcsecgssv3].
8.6.1.1. Initial Labeling and Translation 8.6.1.1. Initial Labeling and Translation
The ability to create a file is an action that a MAC model may wish The ability to create a file is an action that a MAC model may wish
to mediate. The client is given the responsibility to determine the to mediate. The client is given the responsibility to determine the
initial security attribute to be placed on a file. This allows the initial security attribute to be placed on a file. This allows the
client to make a decision as to the acceptable security attributes to client to make a decision as to the acceptable security attributes to
create a file with before sending the request to the server. Once create a file with before sending the request to the server. Once
the server receives the creation request from the client it may the server receives the creation request from the client it may
choose to evaluate if the security attribute is acceptable. choose to evaluate if the security attribute is acceptable.
skipping to change at page 43, line 9 skipping to change at page 44, line 15
otherwise it will return NFS4ERR_ACCESS. otherwise it will return NFS4ERR_ACCESS.
Implementations MAY validate security attributes supplied over the Implementations MAY validate security attributes supplied over the
network to ensure that they are within a set of attributes permitted network to ensure that they are within a set of attributes permitted
from a specific peer, and if not, reject them. Note that a system from a specific peer, and if not, reject them. Note that a system
may permit a different set of attributes to be accepted from each may permit a different set of attributes to be accepted from each
peer. peer.
8.6.1.3. Limited Server 8.6.1.3. Limited Server
A Limited Server mode (see Section 3.5.2 of [19]) consists of a A Limited Server mode (see Section 3.5.2 of [Haynes12]) consists of a
server which is label aware, but does not enforce policies. Such a server which is label aware, but does not enforce policies. Such a
server will store and retrieve all object labels presented by server will store and retrieve all object labels presented by
clients, utilize the methods described in Section 8.3.5 to allow the clients, utilize the methods described in Section 8.3.5 to allow the
clients to detect changing labels,, but will not restrict access via clients to detect changing labels,, but will not restrict access via
the subject label. Instead, it will expect the clients to enforce the subject label. Instead, it will expect the clients to enforce
all such access locally. all such access locally.
8.6.2. Guest Mode 8.6.2. Guest Mode
Guest mode implies that either the client or the server does not Guest mode implies that either the client or the server does not
skipping to change at page 44, line 9 skipping to change at page 45, line 13
An example of this is that a server that modifies READDIR or LOOKUP An example of this is that a server that modifies READDIR or LOOKUP
results based on the client's subject label might want to always results based on the client's subject label might want to always
construct the same subject label for a client which does not present construct the same subject label for a client which does not present
one. This will prevent a non-Labeled NFS client from mixing entries one. This will prevent a non-Labeled NFS client from mixing entries
in the directory cache. in the directory cache.
9. Sharing change attribute implementation details with NFSv4 clients 9. Sharing change attribute implementation details with NFSv4 clients
9.1. Introduction 9.1. Introduction
Although both the NFSv4 [9] and NFSv4.1 protocol [1], define the Although both the NFSv4 [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis] and NFSv4.1
change attribute as being mandatory to implement, there is little in protocol [RFC5661], define the change attribute as being mandatory to
the way of guidance. The only mandated feature is that the value implement, there is little in the way of guidance. The only mandated
must change whenever the file data or metadata change. feature is that the value must change whenever the file data or
metadata change.
While this allows for a wide range of implementations, it also leaves While this allows for a wide range of implementations, it also leaves
the client with a conundrum: how does it determine which is the most the client with a conundrum: how does it determine which is the most
recent value for the change attribute in a case where several RPC recent value for the change attribute in a case where several RPC
calls have been issued in parallel? In other words if two COMPOUNDs, calls have been issued in parallel? In other words if two COMPOUNDs,
both containing WRITE and GETATTR requests for the same file, have both containing WRITE and GETATTR requests for the same file, have
been issued in parallel, how does the client determine which of the been issued in parallel, how does the client determine which of the
two change attribute values returned in the replies to the GETATTR two change attribute values returned in the replies to the GETATTR
requests correspond to the most recent state of the file? In some requests correspond to the most recent state of the file? In some
cases, the only recourse may be to send another COMPOUND containing a cases, the only recourse may be to send another COMPOUND containing a
skipping to change at page 44, line 35 skipping to change at page 45, line 40
NFSv4.2 avoids this kind of inefficiency by allowing the server to NFSv4.2 avoids this kind of inefficiency by allowing the server to
share details about how the change attribute is expected to evolve, share details about how the change attribute is expected to evolve,
so that the client may immediately determine which, out of the so that the client may immediately determine which, out of the
several change attribute values returned by the server, is the most several change attribute values returned by the server, is the most
recent. change_attr_type is defined as a new recommended attribute recent. change_attr_type is defined as a new recommended attribute
(see Section 12.2.1), and is per file system. (see Section 12.2.1), and is per file system.
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
NFSv4.2 has all of the security concerns present in NFSv4.1 (see NFSv4.2 has all of the security concerns present in NFSv4.1 (see
Section 21 of [1]) and those present in the Server-side Copy (see Section 21 of [RFC5661]) and those present in the Server-side Copy
Section 3.4) and in Labeled NFS (see Section 8.7). (see Section 3.4) and in Labeled NFS (see Section 8.7).
11. Error Values 11. Error Values
NFS error numbers are assigned to failed operations within a Compound NFS error numbers are assigned to failed operations within a Compound
(COMPOUND or CB_COMPOUND) request. A Compound request contains a (COMPOUND or CB_COMPOUND) request. A Compound request contains a
number of NFS operations that have their results encoded in sequence number of NFS operations that have their results encoded in sequence
in a Compound reply. The results of successful operations will in a Compound reply. The results of successful operations will
consist of an NFS4_OK status followed by the encoded results of the consist of an NFS4_OK status followed by the encoded results of the
operation. If an NFS operation fails, an error status will be operation. If an NFS operation fails, an error status will be
entered in the reply and the Compound request will be terminated. entered in the reply and the Compound request will be terminated.
skipping to change at page 46, line 37 skipping to change at page 47, line 40
The LFS specified in the subject label is not compatible with the LFS The LFS specified in the subject label is not compatible with the LFS
in the object label. in the object label.
11.2. New Operations and Their Valid Errors 11.2. New Operations and Their Valid Errors
This section contains a table that gives the valid error returns for This section contains a table that gives the valid error returns for
each new NFSv4.2 protocol operation. The error code NFS4_OK each new NFSv4.2 protocol operation. The error code NFS4_OK
(indicating no error) is not listed but should be understood to be (indicating no error) is not listed but should be understood to be
returnable by all new operations. The error values for all other returnable by all new operations. The error values for all other
operations are defined in Section 15.2 of [1]. operations are defined in Section 15.2 of [RFC5661].
Valid Error Returns for Each New Protocol Operation Valid Error Returns for Each New Protocol Operation
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Operation | Errors | | Operation | Errors |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| COPY | NFS4ERR_ACCESS, NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED, | | COPY | NFS4ERR_ACCESS, NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED, |
| | NFS4ERR_BADXDR, NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID, | | | NFS4ERR_BADXDR, NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID, |
| | NFS4ERR_DEADSESSION, NFS4ERR_DELAY, | | | NFS4ERR_DEADSESSION, NFS4ERR_DELAY, |
| | NFS4ERR_DELEG_REVOKED, NFS4ERR_DQUOT, | | | NFS4ERR_DELEG_REVOKED, NFS4ERR_DQUOT, |
skipping to change at page 49, line 41 skipping to change at page 50, line 41
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Table 2 Table 2
11.3. New Callback Operations and Their Valid Errors 11.3. New Callback Operations and Their Valid Errors
This section contains a table that gives the valid error returns for This section contains a table that gives the valid error returns for
each new NFSv4.2 callback operation. The error code NFS4_OK each new NFSv4.2 callback operation. The error code NFS4_OK
(indicating no error) is not listed but should be understood to be (indicating no error) is not listed but should be understood to be
returnable by all new callback operations. The error values for all returnable by all new callback operations. The error values for all
other callback operations are defined in Section 15.3 of [1]. other callback operations are defined in Section 15.3 of [RFC5661].
Valid Error Returns for Each New Protocol Callback Operation Valid Error Returns for Each New Protocol Callback Operation
+------------+------------------------------------------------------+ +------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Callback | Errors | | Callback | Errors |
| Operation | | | Operation | |
+------------+------------------------------------------------------+ +------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| CB_OFFLOAD | NFS4ERR_BADHANDLE, NFS4ERR_BADXDR, | | CB_OFFLOAD | NFS4ERR_BADHANDLE, NFS4ERR_BADXDR, |
| | NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID, NFS4ERR_DELAY, | | | NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID, NFS4ERR_DELAY, |
| | NFS4ERR_OP_NOT_IN_SESSION, NFS4ERR_REP_TOO_BIG, | | | NFS4ERR_OP_NOT_IN_SESSION, NFS4ERR_REP_TOO_BIG, |
skipping to change at page 50, line 29 skipping to change at page 51, line 29
12. New File Attributes 12. New File Attributes
12.1. New RECOMMENDED Attributes - List and Definition References 12.1. New RECOMMENDED Attributes - List and Definition References
The list of new RECOMMENDED attributes appears in Table 4. The The list of new RECOMMENDED attributes appears in Table 4. The
meaning of the columns of the table are: meaning of the columns of the table are:
Name: The name of the attribute. Name: The name of the attribute.
Id: The number assigned to the attribute. In the event of conflicts Id: The number assigned to the attribute. In the event of conflicts
between the assigned number and [2], the latter is likely between the assigned number and [4.2xdr], the latter is likely
authoritative, but should be resolved with Errata to this document authoritative, but should be resolved with Errata to this document
and/or [2]. See [22] for the Errata process. and/or [4.2xdr]. See [IESG08] for the Errata process.
Data Type: The XDR data type of the attribute. Data Type: The XDR data type of the attribute.
Acc: Access allowed to the attribute. Acc: Access allowed to the attribute.
R means read-only (GETATTR may retrieve, SETATTR may not set). R means read-only (GETATTR may retrieve, SETATTR may not set).
W means write-only (SETATTR may set, GETATTR may not retrieve). W means write-only (SETATTR may set, GETATTR may not retrieve).
R W means read/write (GETATTR may retrieve, SETATTR may set). R W means read/write (GETATTR may retrieve, SETATTR may set).
skipping to change at page 51, line 32 skipping to change at page 52, line 32
NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_MONOTONIC_INCR = 0, NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_MONOTONIC_INCR = 0,
NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_VERSION_COUNTER = 1, NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_VERSION_COUNTER = 1,
NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_VERSION_COUNTER_NOPNFS = 2, NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_VERSION_COUNTER_NOPNFS = 2,
NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_TIME_METADATA = 3, NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_TIME_METADATA = 3,
NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_UNDEFINED = 4 NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_UNDEFINED = 4
}; };
change_attr_type is a per file system attribute which enables the change_attr_type is a per file system attribute which enables the
NFSv4.2 server to provide additional information about how it expects NFSv4.2 server to provide additional information about how it expects
the change attribute value to evolve after the file data, or metadata the change attribute value to evolve after the file data, or metadata
has changed. While Section 5.4 of [1] discusses per file system has changed. While Section 5.4 of [RFC5661] discusses per file
attributes, it is expected that the value of change_attr_type not system attributes, it is expected that the value of change_attr_type
depend on the value of "homogeneous" and only changes in the event of not depend on the value of "homogeneous" and only changes in the
a migration. event of a migration.
NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_UNDEFINED: The change attribute does not take NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_UNDEFINED: The change attribute does not take
values that fit into any of these categories. values that fit into any of these categories.
NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_MONOTONIC_INCR: The change attribute value MUST NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_MONOTONIC_INCR: The change attribute value MUST
monotonically increase for every atomic change to the file monotonically increase for every atomic change to the file
attributes, data, or directory contents. attributes, data, or directory contents.
NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_VERSION_COUNTER: The change attribute value MUST NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_VERSION_COUNTER: The change attribute value MUST
be incremented by one unit for every atomic change to the file be incremented by one unit for every atomic change to the file
skipping to change at page 52, line 8 skipping to change at page 53, line 8
preserved when writing to pNFS data servers. preserved when writing to pNFS data servers.
NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_VERSION_COUNTER_NOPNFS: The change attribute NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_VERSION_COUNTER_NOPNFS: The change attribute
value MUST be incremented by one unit for every atomic change to value MUST be incremented by one unit for every atomic change to
the file attributes, data, or directory contents. In the case the file attributes, data, or directory contents. In the case
where the client is writing to pNFS data servers, the number of where the client is writing to pNFS data servers, the number of
increments is not guaranteed to exactly match the number of increments is not guaranteed to exactly match the number of
writes. writes.
NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_TIME_METADATA: The change attribute is NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_TIME_METADATA: The change attribute is
implemented as suggested in the NFSv4 spec [9] in terms of the implemented as suggested in the NFSv4 spec
time_metadata attribute. [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis] in terms of the time_metadata
attribute.
If either NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_MONOTONIC_INCR, If either NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_MONOTONIC_INCR,
NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_VERSION_COUNTER, or NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_VERSION_COUNTER, or
NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_TIME_METADATA are set, then the client knows at NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_TIME_METADATA are set, then the client knows at
the very least that the change attribute is monotonically increasing, the very least that the change attribute is monotonically increasing,
which is sufficient to resolve the question of which value is the which is sufficient to resolve the question of which value is the
most recent. most recent.
If the client sees the value NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_TIME_METADATA, then If the client sees the value NFS4_CHANGE_TYPE_IS_TIME_METADATA, then
by inspecting the value of the 'time_delta' attribute it additionally by inspecting the value of the 'time_delta' attribute it additionally
skipping to change at page 53, line 8 skipping to change at page 54, line 9
labelformat_spec4 slai_lfs; labelformat_spec4 slai_lfs;
opaque slai_data<>; opaque slai_data<>;
}; };
The FATTR4_SEC_LABEL contains an array of two components with the The FATTR4_SEC_LABEL contains an array of two components with the
first component being an LFS. It serves to provide the receiving end first component being an LFS. It serves to provide the receiving end
with the information necessary to translate the security attribute with the information necessary to translate the security attribute
into a form that is usable by the endpoint. Label Formats assigned into a form that is usable by the endpoint. Label Formats assigned
an LFS may optionally choose to include a Policy Identifier field to an LFS may optionally choose to include a Policy Identifier field to
allow for complex policy deployments. The LFS and Label Format allow for complex policy deployments. The LFS and Label Format
Registry are described in detail in [21]. The translation used to Registry are described in detail in [Quigley11]. The translation
interpret the security attribute is not specified as part of the used to interpret the security attribute is not specified as part of
protocol as it may depend on various factors. The second component the protocol as it may depend on various factors. The second
is an opaque section which contains the data of the attribute. This component is an opaque section which contains the data of the
component is dependent on the MAC model to interpret and enforce. attribute. This component is dependent on the MAC model to interpret
and enforce.
In particular, it is the responsibility of the LFS specification to In particular, it is the responsibility of the LFS specification to
define a maximum size for the opaque section, slai_data<>. When define a maximum size for the opaque section, slai_data<>. When
creating or modifying a label for an object, the client needs to be creating or modifying a label for an object, the client needs to be
guaranteed that the server will accept a label that is sized guaranteed that the server will accept a label that is sized
correctly. By both client and server being part of a specific MAC correctly. By both client and server being part of a specific MAC
model, the client will be aware of the size. model, the client will be aware of the size.
If a server supports sec_label, then it MUST also support If a server supports sec_label, then it MUST also support
change_sec_label. Any modification to sec_label MUST modify the change_sec_label. Any modification to sec_label MUST modify the
skipping to change at page 55, line 15 skipping to change at page 56, line 18
on the fore channel that will be a catalyst for the server sending on the fore channel that will be a catalyst for the server sending
callback operations. A partial exception is CB_RECALL_SLOT; the only callback operations. A partial exception is CB_RECALL_SLOT; the only
way the client can avoid supporting this operation is by not creating way the client can avoid supporting this operation is by not creating
a backchannel. a backchannel.
Since this is a summary of the operations and their designation, Since this is a summary of the operations and their designation,
there are subtleties that are not presented here. Therefore, if there are subtleties that are not presented here. Therefore, if
there is a question of the requirements of implementation, the there is a question of the requirements of implementation, the
operation descriptions themselves must be consulted along with other operation descriptions themselves must be consulted along with other
relevant explanatory text within this either specification or that of relevant explanatory text within this either specification or that of
NFSv4.1 [1]. NFSv4.1 [RFC5661].
The abbreviations used in the second and third columns of the table The abbreviations used in the second and third columns of the table
are defined as follows. are defined as follows.
REQ REQUIRED to implement REQ REQUIRED to implement
REC RECOMMENDED to implement REC RECOMMENDED to implement
OPT OPTIONAL to implement OPT OPTIONAL to implement
skipping to change at page 71, line 41 skipping to change at page 73, line 14
union WRITE_PLUS4res switch (nfsstat4 wp_status) { union WRITE_PLUS4res switch (nfsstat4 wp_status) {
case NFS4_OK: case NFS4_OK:
write_response4 wp_resok4; write_response4 wp_resok4;
default: default:
void; void;
}; };
14.7.3. DESCRIPTION 14.7.3. DESCRIPTION
The WRITE_PLUS operation is an extension of the NFSv4.1 WRITE The WRITE_PLUS operation is an extension of the NFSv4.1 WRITE
operation (see Section 18.2 of [1] and writes data to the regular operation (see Section 18.2 of [RFC5661] and writes data to the
file identified by the current filehandle. The server MAY write regular file identified by the current filehandle. The server MAY
fewer bytes than requested by the client. write fewer bytes than requested by the client.
The WRITE_PLUS argument is comprised of an array of rpr_contents, The WRITE_PLUS argument is comprised of an array of rpr_contents,
each of which describe a data_content4 type of data (Section 7.1.2). each of which describe a data_content4 type of data (Section 7.1.2).
For NFSv4.2, the allowed values are data, ADH, and hole. The array For NFSv4.2, the allowed values are data, ADH, and hole. The array
contents MUST be contiguous in the file. A successful WRITE_PLUS contents MUST be contiguous in the file. A successful WRITE_PLUS
will construct a reply for wr_count, wr_committed, and wr_writeverf will construct a reply for wr_count, wr_committed, and wr_writeverf
as per the NFSv4.1 WRITE operation results. If wr_callback_id is as per the NFSv4.1 WRITE operation results. If wr_callback_id is
set, it indicates an asynchronous reply (see Section 14.7.3.4). set, it indicates an asynchronous reply (see Section 14.7.3.4).
WRITE_PLUS has to support all of the errors which are returned by WRITE_PLUS has to support all of the errors which are returned by
WRITE plus NFS4ERR_UNION_NOTSUPP. If the client asks for a hole and WRITE plus NFS4ERR_UNION_NOTSUPP. If the client asks for a hole and
the server does not support that arm of the discriminated union, but the server does not support that arm of the discriminated union, but
does support one or more additional arms, it can signal to the client does support one or more additional arms, it can signal to the client
skipping to change at page 75, line 38 skipping to change at page 76, line 47
| | | |
Figure 6: An asynchronous WRITE_PLUS. Figure 6: An asynchronous WRITE_PLUS.
When CB_OFFLOAD informs the client of the successful WRITE_PLUS, the When CB_OFFLOAD informs the client of the successful WRITE_PLUS, the
write_response4 embedded in the operation will provide the necessary write_response4 embedded in the operation will provide the necessary
information that a synchronous WRITE_PLUS would have provided. information that a synchronous WRITE_PLUS would have provided.
Regardelss of whether the operation is asynchronous or synchronous, Regardelss of whether the operation is asynchronous or synchronous,
it MUST still support the COMMIT operation semantics as outlined in it MUST still support the COMMIT operation semantics as outlined in
Section 18.3 of [1]. I.e., COMMIT works on one or more WRITE Section 18.3 of [RFC5661]. I.e., COMMIT works on one or more WRITE
operations and the WRITE_PLUS operation can appear as several WRITE operations and the WRITE_PLUS operation can appear as several WRITE
operations to the server. The client can use locking operations to operations to the server. The client can use locking operations to
control the behavior on the server with respect to a long running control the behavior on the server with respect to a long running
asynchornous write operations. asynchornous write operations.
14.8. Operation 67: IO_ADVISE - Application I/O access pattern hints 14.8. Operation 67: IO_ADVISE - Application I/O access pattern hints
14.8.1. ARGUMENT 14.8.1. ARGUMENT
enum IO_ADVISE_type4 { enum IO_ADVISE_type4 {
IO_ADVISE4_NORMAL = 0, IO_ADVISE4_NORMAL = 0,
IO_ADVISE4_SEQUENTIAL = 1, IO_ADVISE4_SEQUENTIAL = 1,
IO_ADVISE4_SEQUENTIAL_BACKWARDS = 2, IO_ADVISE4_SEQUENTIAL_BACKWARDS = 2,
IO_ADVISE4_RANDOM = 3, IO_ADVISE4_RANDOM = 3,
IO_ADVISE4_WILLNEED = 4, IO_ADVISE4_WILLNEED = 4,
IO_ADVISE4_WILLNEED_OPPORTUNISTIC = 5, IO_ADVISE4_WILLNEED_OPPORTUNISTIC = 5,
IO_ADVISE4_DONTNEED = 6, IO_ADVISE4_DONTNEED = 6,
skipping to change at page 81, line 13 skipping to change at page 82, line 14
that the data server does not serve MUST NOT result in the status that the data server does not serve MUST NOT result in the status
NFS4ERR_PNFS_IO_HOLE. Instead, the response SHOULD be successful and NFS4ERR_PNFS_IO_HOLE. Instead, the response SHOULD be successful and
if the server applies IO_ADVISE hints on any stripe units that if the server applies IO_ADVISE hints on any stripe units that
overlap with the specified range, those hints SHOULD be indicated in overlap with the specified range, those hints SHOULD be indicated in
the response. the response.
14.9. Changes to Operation 51: LAYOUTRETURN 14.9. Changes to Operation 51: LAYOUTRETURN
14.9.1. Introduction 14.9.1. Introduction
In the pNFS description provided in [1], the client is not capable to In the pNFS description provided in [RFC5661], the client is not
relay an error code from the DS to the MDS. In the specification of capable to relay an error code from the DS to the MDS. In the
the Objects-Based Layout protocol [7], use is made of the opaque specification of the Objects-Based Layout protocol [RFC5664], use is
lrf_body field of the LAYOUTRETURN argument to do such a relaying of made of the opaque lrf_body field of the LAYOUTRETURN argument to do
error codes. In this section, we define a new data structure to such a relaying of error codes. In this section, we define a new
enable the passing of error codes back to the MDS and provide some data structure to enable the passing of error codes back to the MDS
guidelines on what both the client and MDS should expect in such and provide some guidelines on what both the client and MDS should
circumstances. expect in such circumstances.
There are two broad classes of errors, transient and persistent. The There are two broad classes of errors, transient and persistent. The
client SHOULD strive to only use this new mechanism to report client SHOULD strive to only use this new mechanism to report
persistent errors. It MUST be able to deal with transient issues by persistent errors. It MUST be able to deal with transient issues by
itself. Also, while the client might consider an issue to be itself. Also, while the client might consider an issue to be
persistent, it MUST be prepared for the MDS to consider such issues persistent, it MUST be prepared for the MDS to consider such issues
to be transient. A prime example of this is if the MDS fences off a to be transient. A prime example of this is if the MDS fences off a
client from either a stateid or a filehandle. The client will get an client from either a stateid or a filehandle. The client will get an
error from the DS and might relay either NFS4ERR_ACCESS or error from the DS and might relay either NFS4ERR_ACCESS or
NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID back to the MDS, with the belief that this is a NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID back to the MDS, with the belief that this is a
skipping to change at page 82, line 8 skipping to change at page 83, line 9
for the MDS to consider such outages as being transitory. for the MDS to consider such outages as being transitory.
The existing LAYOUTRETURN operation is extended by introducing a new The existing LAYOUTRETURN operation is extended by introducing a new
data structure to report errors, layoutreturn_device_error4. Also, data structure to report errors, layoutreturn_device_error4. Also,
layoutreturn_device_error4 is introduced to enable an array of errors layoutreturn_device_error4 is introduced to enable an array of errors
to be reported. to be reported.
14.9.2. ARGUMENT 14.9.2. ARGUMENT
The ARGUMENT specification of the LAYOUTRETURN operation in section The ARGUMENT specification of the LAYOUTRETURN operation in section
18.44.1 of [1] is augmented by the following XDR code [23]: 18.44.1 of [RFC5661] is augmented by the following XDR code
[RFC4506]:
struct layoutreturn_device_error4 { struct layoutreturn_device_error4 {
deviceid4 lrde_deviceid; deviceid4 lrde_deviceid;
nfsstat4 lrde_status; nfsstat4 lrde_status;
nfs_opnum4 lrde_opnum; nfs_opnum4 lrde_opnum;
}; };
struct layoutreturn_error_report4 { struct layoutreturn_error_report4 {
layoutreturn_device_error4 lrer_errors<>; layoutreturn_device_error4 lrer_errors<>;
}; };
14.9.3. RESULT 14.9.3. RESULT
The RESULT of the LAYOUTRETURN operation is unchanged; see section The RESULT of the LAYOUTRETURN operation is unchanged; see section
18.44.2 of [1]. 18.44.2 of [RFC5661].
14.9.4. DESCRIPTION 14.9.4. DESCRIPTION
The following text is added to the end of the LAYOUTRETURN operation The following text is added to the end of the LAYOUTRETURN operation
DESCRIPTION in section 18.44.3 of [1]. DESCRIPTION in section 18.44.3 of [RFC5661].
When a client uses LAYOUTRETURN with a type of LAYOUTRETURN4_FILE, When a client uses LAYOUTRETURN with a type of LAYOUTRETURN4_FILE,
then if the lrf_body field is NULL, it indicates to the MDS that the then if the lrf_body field is NULL, it indicates to the MDS that the
client experienced no errors. If lrf_body is non-NULL, then the client experienced no errors. If lrf_body is non-NULL, then the
field references error information which is layout type specific. field references error information which is layout type specific.
I.e., the Objects-Based Layout protocol can continue to utilize I.e., the Objects-Based Layout protocol can continue to utilize
lrf_body as specified in [7]. For both Files-Based and Block-Based lrf_body as specified in [RFC5664]. For both Files-Based and Block-
Layouts, the field references a layoutreturn_device_error4, which Based Layouts, the field references a layoutreturn_device_error4,
contains an array of layoutreturn_device_error4. which contains an array of layoutreturn_device_error4.
Each individual layoutreturn_device_error4 describes a single error Each individual layoutreturn_device_error4 describes a single error
associated with a DS, which is identified via lrde_deviceid. The associated with a DS, which is identified via lrde_deviceid. The
operation which returned the error is identified via lrde_opnum. operation which returned the error is identified via lrde_opnum.
Finally the NFS error value (nfsstat4) encountered is provided via Finally the NFS error value (nfsstat4) encountered is provided via
lrde_status and may consist of the following error codes: lrde_status and may consist of the following error codes:
NFS4ERR_NXIO: The client was unable to establish any communication NFS4ERR_NXIO: The client was unable to establish any communication
with the DS. with the DS.
NFS4ERR_*: The client was able to establish communication with the NFS4ERR_*: The client was able to establish communication with the
DS and is returning one of the allowed error codes for the DS and is returning one of the allowed error codes for the
operation denoted by lrde_opnum. operation denoted by lrde_opnum.
14.9.5. IMPLEMENTATION 14.9.5. IMPLEMENTATION
The following text is added to the end of the LAYOUTRETURN operation The following text is added to the end of the LAYOUTRETURN operation
IMPLEMENTATION in section 18.4.4 of [1]. IMPLEMENTATION in section 18.4.4 of [RFC5661].
Clients are expected to tolerate transient storage device errors, and Clients are expected to tolerate transient storage device errors, and
hence clients SHOULD NOT use the LAYOUTRETURN error handling for hence clients SHOULD NOT use the LAYOUTRETURN error handling for
device access problems that may be transient. The methods by which a device access problems that may be transient. The methods by which a
client decides whether a device access problem is transient vs. client decides whether a device access problem is transient vs.
persistent are implementation-specific, but may include retrying I/Os persistent are implementation-specific, but may include retrying I/Os
to a data server under appropriate conditions. to a data server under appropriate conditions.
When an I/O fails to a storage device, the client SHOULD retry the When an I/O fails to a storage device, the client SHOULD retry the
failed I/O via the MDS. In this situation, before retrying the I/O, failed I/O via the MDS. In this situation, before retrying the I/O,
skipping to change at page 85, line 33 skipping to change at page 86, line 33
union READ_PLUS4res switch (nfsstat4 rp_status) { union READ_PLUS4res switch (nfsstat4 rp_status) {
case NFS4_OK: case NFS4_OK:
read_plus_res4 rp_resok4; read_plus_res4 rp_resok4;
default: default:
void; void;
}; };
14.10.3. DESCRIPTION 14.10.3. DESCRIPTION
The READ_PLUS operation is based upon the NFSv4.1 READ operation (see The READ_PLUS operation is based upon the NFSv4.1 READ operation (see
Section 18.22 of [1]) and similarly reads data from the regular file Section 18.22 of [RFC5661]) and similarly reads data from the regular
identified by the current filehandle. file identified by the current filehandle.
The client provides a rpa_offset of where the READ_PLUS is to start The client provides a rpa_offset of where the READ_PLUS is to start
and a rpa_count of how many bytes are to be read. A rpa_offset of and a rpa_count of how many bytes are to be read. A rpa_offset of
zero means to read data starting at the beginning of the file. If zero means to read data starting at the beginning of the file. If
rpa_offset is greater than or equal to the size of the file, the rpa_offset is greater than or equal to the size of the file, the
status NFS4_OK is returned with di_length (the data length) set to status NFS4_OK is returned with di_length (the data length) set to
zero and eof set to TRUE. zero and eof set to TRUE.
The READ_PLUS result is comprised of an array of rpr_contents, each The READ_PLUS result is comprised of an array of rpr_contents, each
of which describe a data_content4 type of data (Section 7.1.2). For of which describe a data_content4 type of data (Section 7.1.2). For
skipping to change at page 87, line 33 skipping to change at page 88, line 33
byte-range locks or the current share deny modes for the file. For a byte-range locks or the current share deny modes for the file. For a
READ_PLUS with a stateid value of all bits equal to one, the server READ_PLUS with a stateid value of all bits equal to one, the server
MAY allow READ_PLUS operations to bypass locking checks at the MAY allow READ_PLUS operations to bypass locking checks at the
server. server.
On success, the current filehandle retains its value. On success, the current filehandle retains its value.
14.10.4. IMPLEMENTATION 14.10.4. IMPLEMENTATION
In general, the IMPLEMENTATION notes for READ in Section 18.22.4 of In general, the IMPLEMENTATION notes for READ in Section 18.22.4 of
[1] also apply to READ_PLUS. One delta is that when the owner has a [RFC5661] also apply to READ_PLUS. One delta is that when the owner
locked byte range, the server MUST return an array of rpr_contents has a locked byte range, the server MUST return an array of
with values inside that range. rpr_contents with values inside that range.
14.10.4.1. Additional pNFS Implementation Information 14.10.4.1. Additional pNFS Implementation Information
With pNFS, the semantics of using READ_PLUS remains the same. Any With pNFS, the semantics of using READ_PLUS remains the same. Any
data server MAY return a hole or ADH result for a READ_PLUS request data server MAY return a hole or ADH result for a READ_PLUS request
that it receives. When a data server chooses to return such a that it receives. When a data server chooses to return such a
result, it has the option of returning information for the data result, it has the option of returning information for the data
stored on that data server (as defined by the data layout), but it stored on that data server (as defined by the data layout), but it
MUST NOT return results for a byte range that includes data managed MUST NOT return results for a byte range that includes data managed
by another data server. by another data server.
skipping to change at page 91, line 33 skipping to change at page 92, line 33
1. the COPY operation 1. the COPY operation
2. the WRITE_PLUS operation and any arm of the discriminated union 2. the WRITE_PLUS operation and any arm of the discriminated union
other than NFS4_CONTENT_DATA other than NFS4_CONTENT_DATA
then the client is REQUIRED to support the CB_OFFLOAD operation. then the client is REQUIRED to support the CB_OFFLOAD operation.
There is a potential race between the reply to the original There is a potential race between the reply to the original
transaction on the forechannel and the CB_OFFLOAD callback on the transaction on the forechannel and the CB_OFFLOAD callback on the
backchannel. Sections 2.10.6.3 and 20.9.3 in [1] describes how to backchannel. Sections 2.10.6.3 and 20.9.3 in [RFC5661] describes how
handle this type of issue. to handle this type of issue.
15.1.3.1. Server-side Copy 15.1.3.1. Server-side Copy
CB_OFFLOAD is used for both intra- and inter-server asynchronous CB_OFFLOAD is used for both intra- and inter-server asynchronous
copies. This operation is sent by the destination server to the copies. This operation is sent by the destination server to the
client in a CB_COMPOUND request. Upon success, the client in a CB_COMPOUND request. Upon success, the
coa_resok4.wr_count presents the total number of bytes copied. coa_resok4.wr_count presents the total number of bytes copied.
15.1.3.2. WRITE_PLUS 15.1.3.2. WRITE_PLUS
CB_OFFLOAD is used to report the completion of either a hole punch or CB_OFFLOAD is used to report the completion of either a hole punch or
an ADH initialization. Upon success, the coa_resok4 will contain the an ADH initialization. Upon success, the coa_resok4 will contain the
same information that a synchronous WRITE_PLUS would have returned. same information that a synchronous WRITE_PLUS would have returned.
16. IANA Considerations 16. IANA Considerations
This section uses terms that are defined in [24]. This section uses terms that are defined in [RFC5226].
17. References 17. References
17.1. Normative References 17.1. Normative References
[1] Shepler, S., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File System [4.2xdr] Haynes, T., "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor
(NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC 5661, Version 2 External Data Representation Standard (XDR)
January 2010. Description", March 2013.
[2] Haynes, T., "Network File System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version [RFC2203] Eisler, M., Chiu, A., and L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol
2 External Data Representation Standard (XDR) Description", Specification", RFC 2203, September 1997.
March 2013.
[3] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
January 2005. RFC 3986, January 2005.
[4] Haynes, T. and N. Williams, "Remote Procedure Call (RPC) [RFC5661] Shepler, S., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File
Security Version 3", draft-williams-rpcsecgssv3 (work in System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol",
progress), 2011. RFC 5661, January 2010.
[5] The Open Group, "Section 'posix_fadvise()' of System Interfaces [RFC5664] Halevy, B., Welch, B., and J. Zelenka, "Object-Based
of The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6, IEEE Std 1003.1, Parallel NFS (pNFS) Operations", RFC 5664, January 2010.
2004 Edition", 2004.
[6] Eisler, M., Chiu, A., and L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol [posix_fadvise]
Specification", RFC 2203, September 1997. The Open Group, "Section 'posix_fadvise()' of System
Interfaces of The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6,
IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 Edition", 2004.
[7] Halevy, B., Welch, B., and J. Zelenka, "Object-Based Parallel [rpcsecgssv3]
NFS (pNFS) Operations", RFC 5664, January 2010. Haynes, T. and N. Williams, "Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
Security Version 3", draft-williams-rpcsecgssv3 (work in
progress), 2011.
17.2. Informative References 17.2. Informative References
[8] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [Ashdown08]
Levels", March 1997. Ashdown, L., "Chapter 15, Validating Database Files and
Backups, of Oracle Database Backup and Recovery User's
Guide 11g Release 1 (11.1)", August 2008.
[9] Haynes, T. and D. Noveck, "Network File System (NFS) version 4 [Baira08] Bairavasundaram, L., Goodson, G., Schroeder, B., Arpaci-
Protocol", draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-25 (Work In Progress), Dusseau, A., and R. Arpaci-Dusseau, "An Analysis of Data
February 2013. Corruption in the Storage Stack", Proceedings of the 6th
USENIX Symposium on File and Storage Technologies (FAST
'08) , 2008.
[10] Lentini, J., Everhart, C., Ellard, D., Tewari, R., and M. Naik, [FEDFS-ADMIN]
"NSDB Protocol for Federated Filesystems", Lentini, J., Everhart, C., Ellard, D., Tewari, R., and M.
draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol (Work In Progress), Naik, "Administration Protocol for Federated Filesystems",
2010. draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-admin (Work In Progress),
2010.
[11] Lentini, J., Everhart, C., Ellard, D., Tewari, R., and M. Naik, [FEDFS-NSDB]
"Administration Protocol for Federated Filesystems", Lentini, J., Everhart, C., Ellard, D., Tewari, R., and M.
draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-admin (Work In Progress), 2010. Naik, "NSDB Protocol for Federated Filesystems",
draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol (Work In Progress),
2010.
[12] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., [Haynes12]
Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- Haynes, T., "Requirements for Labeled NFS",
HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-03 (work in progress).
[13] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD 9, [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis]
RFC 959, October 1985. Haynes, T. and D. Noveck, "Network File System (NFS)
version 4 Protocol", draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-25 (Work
In Progress), February 2013.
[14] Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol [IESG08] ISEG, "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream",
(CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996. 2008.
[15] Strohm, R., "Chapter 2, Data Blocks, Extents, and Segments, of [MLS] "Section 46.6. Multi-Level Security (MLS) of Deployment
Oracle Database Concepts 11g Release 1 (11.1)", January 2011. Guide: Deployment, configuration and administration of Red
Hat Enterprise Linux 5, Edition 6", 2011.
[16] Ashdown, L., "Chapter 15, Validating Database Files and [McDougall07]
Backups, of Oracle Database Backup and Recovery User's Guide McDougall, R. and J. Mauro, "Section 11.4.3, Detecting
11g Release 1 (11.1)", August 2008. Memory Corruption of Solaris Internals", 2007.
[17] McDougall, R. and J. Mauro, "Section 11.4.3, Detecting Memory [Quigley11]
Corruption of Solaris Internals", 2007. Quigley, D. and J. Lu, "Registry Specification for MAC
Security Label Formats",
draft-quigley-label-format-registry (work in progress),
2011.
[18] Bairavasundaram, L., Goodson, G., Schroeder, B., Arpaci- [RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol",
Dusseau, A., and R. Arpaci-Dusseau, "An Analysis of Data STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985.
Corruption in the Storage Stack", Proceedings of the 6th USENIX
Symposium on File and Storage Technologies (FAST '08) , 2008.
[19] Haynes, T., "Requirements for Labeled NFS", [RFC1994] Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication
draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-03 (work in progress). Protocol (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996.
[20] "Section 46.6. Multi-Level Security (MLS) of Deployment Guide: [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Deployment, configuration and administration of Red Hat Requirement Levels", March 1997.
Enterprise Linux 5, Edition 6", 2011.
[21] Quigley, D. and J. Lu, "Registry Specification for MAC Security [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Label Formats", draft-quigley-label-format-registry (work in Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
progress), 2011. Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[22] ISEG, "IESG Processing of RFC Errata for the IETF Stream", [RFC4506] Eisler, M., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard",
2008. RFC 4506, May 2006.
[23] Eisler, M., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard", [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
RFC 4506, May 2006. IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[24] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA [Strohm11]
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. Strohm, R., "Chapter 2, Data Blocks, Extents, and
Segments, of Oracle Database Concepts 11g Release 1
(11.1)", January 2011.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
For the pNFS Access Permissions Check, the original draft was by For the pNFS Access Permissions Check, the original draft was by
Sorin Faibish, David Black, Mike Eisler, and Jason Glasgow. The work Sorin Faibish, David Black, Mike Eisler, and Jason Glasgow. The work
was influenced by discussions with Benny Halevy and Bruce Fields. A was influenced by discussions with Benny Halevy and Bruce Fields. A
review was done by Tom Haynes. review was done by Tom Haynes.
For the Sharing change attribute implementation details with NFSv4 For the Sharing change attribute implementation details with NFSv4
clients, the original draft was by Trond Myklebust. clients, the original draft was by Trond Myklebust.
 End of changes. 104 change blocks. 
323 lines changed or deleted 359 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/