On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote: >> and doing EINVAL in the v2 case. > > Which won't solve the problem described in his mail.
Of course it will - in the NFS v3 case, and in theory you'll be getting what the server supports. I don't think we should go outside the nfs v2 spec and return values we "hope are ok" in the nfs v2 case - remember here we're returning the client values and hoping the server can support it. So what you're saying is that it's better to return a potentially unsafe value, and have filenames that a potential server might not handle? I'm not buying that. in that special case of I'm running some software that does this, I'd rather realize I'm running it on v2 that doesn't support it by having it fail than just using the client side value and "hope like heck it works out". Presumably, if I'm running v2, I'm doing it for specefic reasons that v2 is better for and I know what I'm doing. I'd rather not have the client start to do v3 like things on v2 just so things "might work". - at that point I should be noticing the error, and the fix is "mount it v3"
