On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Benny Halevy wrote:
Chuck Lever wrote:
Hi Benny-
On Dec 15, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Benny Halevy wrote:
refactor the nfs4 server lock code to use last_byte_offset
to compute the last byte covered by the lock. Check for overflow
so that the last byte is set to NFS4_MAX_UINT64 if offset + len
wraps around.
Also, use NFS4_MAX_UINT64 for ~(u64)0 where appropriate.
Comments below are more about the existing code than your patch.
Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
include/linux/nfs4.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
index 977ef84..1835538 100644
--- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
@@ -2404,6 +2404,26 @@ out:
#define LOCK_HASH_SIZE (1 << LOCK_HASH_BITS)
#define LOCK_HASH_MASK (LOCK_HASH_SIZE - 1)
+static inline u64
+end_offset(u64 start, u64 len)
+{
+ u64 end;
+
+ end = start + len;
+ return end >= start ? end: NFS4_MAX_UINT64;
+}
+
+/* last octet in a range */
+static inline u64
+last_byte_offset(u64 start, u64 len)
+{
+ u64 end;
+
+ BUG_ON(!len);
+ end = start + len;
+ return end > start ? end - 1: NFS4_MAX_UINT64;
+}
+
#define lockownerid_hashval(id) \
((id) & LOCK_HASH_MASK)
@@ -2506,8 +2526,8 @@ nfs4_set_lock_denied(struct file_lock *fl,
struct nfsd4_lock_denied *deny)
deny->ld_clientid.cl_id = 0;
}
deny->ld_start = fl->fl_start;
- deny->ld_length = ~(u64)0;
- if (fl->fl_end != ~(u64)0)
+ deny->ld_length = NFS4_MAX_UINT64;
+ if (fl->fl_end != NFS4_MAX_UINT64)
Someone more expert with the locking code than I am should comment on
this... but fl_end is a loff_t (long long) -- not a u64. The check
here should be for OFFSET_MAX, just like it is in lockd, right? Is
Yes. I think you're right.
nfsd4_lock calls nfs4_transform_lock_offset right after
setting fl_end = last_byte_offset()
and nfs4_transform_lock_offset "truncates" the lock to
OFFSET_MAX.
That said, I wonder if we shouldn't return NFS4ERR_BAD_RANGE
in nfsd4_lock lock->lk_length != NFS4_MAX_UINT64 &&
last_byte_offset(lock->lk_offset, lock->lk_length) > (u64)OFFSET_MAX.
(or just != file_lock.fl_end after nfs4_transform_lock_offset)
The problem is that rfc3530 seems to refer only to 32-bit wide lock
ranges and not to signed offsets.
Some servers may only support locking for byte offsets that fit
within 32 bits. If the client specifies a range that includes a byte
beyond the last byte offset of the 32-bit range, but does not include
the last byte offset of the 32-bit and all of the byte offsets beyond
it, up to the end of the valid 64-bit range, such a 32-bit server
MUST return the error NFS4ERR_BAD_RANGE.
"long long" the same width on all hardware architectures?
I think so. But even if it is, I don't know if that's just
by chance or by design...
deny->ld_length = fl->fl_end - fl->fl_start + 1;
deny->ld_type = NFS4_READ_LT;
if (fl->fl_type != F_RDLCK)
@@ -2604,7 +2624,7 @@ out:
static int
check_lock_length(u64 offset, u64 length)
{
- return ((length == 0) || ((length != ~(u64)0) &&
+ return ((length == 0) || ((length != NFS4_MAX_UINT64) &&
LOFF_OVERFLOW(offset, length)));
}
@@ -2724,11 +2744,7 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct
nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
file_lock.fl_lmops = &nfsd_posix_mng_ops;
file_lock.fl_start = lock->lk_offset;
- if ((lock->lk_length == ~(u64)0) ||
- LOFF_OVERFLOW(lock->lk_offset, lock->lk_length))
- file_lock.fl_end = ~(u64)0;
- else
- file_lock.fl_end = lock->lk_offset + lock->lk_length - 1;
+ file_lock.fl_end = last_byte_offset(lock->lk_offset, lock-
lk_length);
Likewise, I think for proper interoperation with our VFS locking code,
last_byte_offset should return a loff_t, and use OFFSET_MAX, not
NFS4_MAX_UINT64 for the "biggest value I can think of" return.
I actually reuse last_byte_offset in the pnfs code for layout
ranges too so I prefer to leave it in nfs4 "units" and maybe
add a wrapper function that does the conversion, possibly with
range checking, and returning status indicating whether
information was lost or not.
This is a common issue for NFS -- the NFS/NLM wire data types for lock
range values are u32 and u64, but Linux's internal types are
loff_t's. Our XDR code should manage this conversion and check that
the incoming lock ranges can be supported by the implementation.
I'm not sure if the XDR layer is the right place for that.
Personally I think this should be checked at a higher layer
but I don't feel strongly about it.
We don't actually have any unit test cases that check the behavior of
this code around the file size and lock range maxima.
Fred, how hard would it be to add these cases to the pynfs
test suite?
Benny
The 4.0 suite has a few tests along these lines such as LOCK6 and LOCKRNG.
Fred
nfs4_transform_lock_offset(&file_lock);
/*
@@ -2827,10 +2843,7 @@ nfsd4_lockt(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct
nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
file_lock.fl_lmops = &nfsd_posix_mng_ops;
file_lock.fl_start = lockt->lt_offset;
- if ((lockt->lt_length == ~(u64)0) || LOFF_OVERFLOW(lockt-
lt_offset, lockt->lt_length))
- file_lock.fl_end = ~(u64)0;
- else
- file_lock.fl_end = lockt->lt_offset + lockt->lt_length - 1;
+ file_lock.fl_end = last_byte_offset(lockt->lt_offset, lockt-
lt_length);
nfs4_transform_lock_offset(&file_lock);
@@ -2894,10 +2907,7 @@ nfsd4_locku(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct
nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
file_lock.fl_lmops = &nfsd_posix_mng_ops;
file_lock.fl_start = locku->lu_offset;
- if ((locku->lu_length == ~(u64)0) || LOFF_OVERFLOW(locku-
lu_offset, locku->lu_length))
- file_lock.fl_end = ~(u64)0;
- else
- file_lock.fl_end = locku->lu_offset + locku->lu_length - 1;
+ file_lock.fl_end = last_byte_offset(locku->lu_offset, locku-
lu_length);
nfs4_transform_lock_offset(&file_lock);
/*
diff --git a/include/linux/nfs4.h b/include/linux/nfs4.h
index ea03667..b912311 100644
--- a/include/linux/nfs4.h
+++ b/include/linux/nfs4.h
@@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
#define NFS4_ACE_GENERIC_EXECUTE 0x001200A0
#define NFS4_ACE_MASK_ALL 0x001F01FF
+#define NFS4_MAX_UINT64 (~(u64)0)
+
enum nfs4_acl_whotype {
NFS4_ACL_WHO_NAMED = 0,
NFS4_ACL_WHO_OWNER,
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
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
