I can understand the concern. But I think instead of generally converting all the ESTALE errors ENOENT, probably we should try to analyze the errors that are generated by lower layers (like posix).
Even fuse kernel module some times returns ESTALE. (Well, I can see it returning ESTALE errors in some cases in the code. Someone please correct me if thats not the case). And aso I am not sure if converting all the ESTALE errors to ENOENT is ok or not.
For fd based operations, I am not sure if ENOENT can be sent or not (as though the file is unlinked, it can be accessed if there were open fds on it before unlinking the file).
I feel, we have to look into some parts to check if they generating ESTALE is a proper error or not. Also, if there is any bug in below layers fixing which can avoid ESTALE errors, then I feel that would be the better option.
My 2 cents.
Regards,
Raghavendra
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Prashanth Pai <ppai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
TL;DR: +1 to report ESTALE as ENOENT
While ESTALE is an acceptable errno for NFS clients, it's not so much for
FUSE clients. Many applications that talk to a FUSE mount do not handle
ESTALE and expect the behavior to be analogous to that of local
filesystems such as XFS. While it's okay for brick to send ESTALE to
glusterfs client stack, one has to be very careful about errno returned by
FUSE back to applications.
For example, syscalls such as fgetxattr are not expected (at least from
manpage) to throw ESTALE but with glusterfs, it does[1]. Further, POSIX
guarantees that once an application has a valid fd, operations like
fgetxattr() on the fd should succeed even after another application(client)
issues an unlink()
[1]:http://paste.openstack.org/show/335506/
Regards,
-Prashanth Pai
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
----- Original Message -----
> From: "FNU Raghavendra Manjunath" <rabhat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Soumya Koduri" <skoduri@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Ira Cooper" <icooper@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:11:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Report ESTALE as ENOENT
>
>
> I would still prefer not converting all the ESTALE to ENOENT. I think we need
> to understand this specific case of parallel rm -rfs getting ESTALE errors
> and handle it accordingly.
>
> Regarding, gfapi not honoring the ESTALE errors, I think it would be better
> to do revalidates upon getting ESTALE.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Regards,
> Raghavendra
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Soumya Koduri < skoduri@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
> On 03/24/2016 07:34 PM, FNU Raghavendra Manjunath wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes. I think the caching example mentioned by Shyam is a good example of
> ESTALE error. Also User Serviceable Snapshots (USS) relies heavily on
> ESTALE errors. Because the files/directories from the snapshots are
> assigned a virtual gfid on the fly when being looked up. If those inodes
> are purged out of the inode table due to lru list becoming full, then a
> access to that gfid from the client, will make snapview-server send
> ESTALE and either fuse (I think our fuse xlator does a revalidate upon
> getting ESTALE) or NFS client can revalidate via path based resolution.
>
> So wouldn't it be wrong not to send ESTALE to NFS-clients and map it to
> ENOENT, as was intended in the original mail.
>
> NFSv3 rfc [1] mentions that NFS3ERR_STALE is a valid error for REMOVE fop.
>
> Also (at least in gfapi) the resolve code path doesn't seem to be honoring
> ESTALE errors - glfs_resolve_component(..), glfs_refresh_inode_safe(..)
> etc.. Do we need to fix them?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Soumya
>
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1813.txt (section# 3.3.12)
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Raghavendra
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Shyam < srangana@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto: srangana@xxxxxxxxxx >> wrote:
>
> On 03/23/2016 12:07 PM, Ravishankar N wrote:
>
> On 03/23/2016 09:16 PM, Soumya Koduri wrote:
>
> If it occurs only when the file/dir is not actually present
> at the
> back-end, shouldn't we fix the server to send ENOENT then?
>
> I never fully understood it here is the answer:
> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/6318/
>
>
> The intention of ESTALE is to state that the inode#/GFID is stale,
> when using that for any operations. IOW, we did not find the GFID in
> the backend, that does not mean the name is not present. This hence
> means, if you have a pGFID+bname, try resolving with that.
>
> For example, a client side cache can hang onto a GFID for a bname,
> but another client could have, in the interim, unlinked the bname
> and create a new file there.
>
> A presence test using GFID by the client that cached the result the
> first time, is an ESTALE. But a resolution based on pGFID+bname
> again by the same client would be a success.
>
> By extension, a GFID based resolution, when not really present in
> the backend will return ESTALE, it could very well mean ENOENT, but
> that has to be determined by the client again, if possible.
>
> See "A10. What does it mean when my application fails because of an
> ESTALE error?" for NFS here [1] and [2] (there maybe better sources
> for this information)
>
> [1] http://nfs.sourceforge.net/
> [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/272684/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx >
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx >
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
