On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 03:21:58PM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> I'm seeing this warning on the open_downgrade path
> when running the newpynfs tests:
>
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: writeable file with no mnt_want_write()
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: WARNING: at /usr0/export/dev/bhalevy/git/linux-pnfs-bh-nfs41/include/linux/fs.h:855 drop_file_write_access+0x6b/0x7e()
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: Modules linked in: nfsd auth_rpcgss exportfs nfs lockd nfs_acl sunrpc
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: Call Trace:
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaadc88: [<6002f471>] warn_on_slowpath+0x54/0x8e
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaadcc8: [<601b790d>] printk+0xa0/0x793
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaadd38: [<601b6205>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x1db/0x1ea
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaadd68: [<7107d4d5>] nfs4_preprocess_seqid_op+0x2a6/0x31c [nfsd]
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaadda8: [<60078dc9>] drop_file_write_access+0x6b/0x7e
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaaddc8: [<710804e4>] nfsd4_open_downgrade+0x114/0x1de [nfsd]
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaade08: [<71076215>] nfsd4_proc_compound+0x1ba/0x2dc [nfsd]
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaade48: [<71068221>] nfsd_dispatch+0xe5/0x1c2 [nfsd]
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaade88: [<71312f81>] svc_process+0x3fd/0x714 [sunrpc]
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaadea8: [<60039a81>] kernel_sigprocmask+0xf3/0x100
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaadee8: [<7106874b>] nfsd+0x182/0x29b [nfsd]
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaadf48: [<60021cc9>] run_kernel_thread+0x41/0x4a
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaadf58: [<710685c9>] nfsd+0x0/0x29b [nfsd]
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaadf98: [<60021cb0>] run_kernel_thread+0x28/0x4a
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: 6eaadfc8: [<60013829>] new_thread_handler+0x72/0x9c
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel:
> Jul 3 07:32:50 buml kernel: ---[ end trace 2426dd7cb2fba3bf ]---
>
> I'm not sure what would be the right fix for that...
Yes. I'm a bit confused about that. Hm, maybe we need to be doing a
mnt_want_write on open_upgrade and mnt_put_write on downgrade?
> The following could be unrelated, and maybe I'm just confused
> but there seems to be something funky about the way we convert
> from bmap to access bits.
> (unrelated note: for nfsv4.1 we'll need to mask the share access with
> ~OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WANT_DELEG_MASK)
>
> If I understand this correctly, we set a bit in
> st_access_bmap corresponding to the share_access,
> so for read-only bit #1 will be, write-only #2,
> and for read-write (only) bits 1-3 should be set.
No, in that case only the third bit 3 should be set.
We're just trying to enforce rfc 3530 14.2.19:
"The share_access and share_deny bits specified must be exactly
equal to the union of the share_access and share_deny bits
specified for some subset of the OPENs in effect for current
openowner on the current file. If that constraint is not
respected, the error NFS4ERR_INVAL should be returned."
Note that this paragraph would allow
OPEN for read
OPEN for write
OPEN_DOWNGRADE to read
but have us return NFS4ERR_INVAL if we got a sequence of opens like:
OPEN for read and write
OPEN_DOWNGRADE to read
because in this case there was only a single open (for read and write),
and no open just for read.
--b.
> otherwise this wouldn't work:
> if (!test_bit(od->od_share_access, &stp->st_access_bmap)) {
> dprintk("NFSD:access not a subset current bitmap: 0x%lx, input access=%08x\n",
> stp->st_access_bmap, od->od_share_access);
> goto out;
> }
>
> but init_stateid sets only one bit:
> __set_bit(open->op_share_access, &stp->st_access_bmap);
>
> only if we went through nfs4_upgrade_open another bit may be set.
>
> Benny
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
