On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 08:38:00PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > Commit 909e22e05353 ("exportfs: fix 'passing zero to ERR_PTR()'
> > > warning") changes this behavior from always returning success,
> > > regardless if dentry was reconnected by somoe other task, to always
> > > returning a failure.
> >
> > I wonder whether it might be safest to take the out_reconnected case on
> > any error, not just -ENOENT.
> >
>
> I wondered that as well, but preferred to follow the precedent.
I can live with that.
> > There's not much value in preserving the error as exportfs_decode_fh()
> > ends up turning everything into ENOMEM or ESTALE for some reason.
> >
>
> You signed up on this reason...
Hah, I forgot that one.
--b.
>
> Thanks,
> Amir.
>
> commit 09bb8bfffd29c3dffb72bc2c69a062dfb1ae624c
> Author: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu Aug 4 10:19:06 2016 +1000
>
> exportfs: be careful to only return expected errors.
>
> When nfsd calls fh_to_dentry, it expect ESTALE or ENOMEM as errors.
> In particular it can be tempting to return ENOENT, but this is not
> handled well by nfsd.
>
> Rather than requiring strict adherence to error code code filesystems,
> treat all unexpected error codes the same as ESTALE. This is safest.
>
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
