At 02:55 AM 5/20/2009, Rob Gardner wrote: >Tom Talpey wrote: >> At 04:43 PM 5/19/2009, Rob Gardner wrote: >> >I've got a question about lockd in conjunction with a filesystem that >> >provides its own (async) locking. >> > >> >After nlmsvc_lock() calls vfs_lock_file(), it seems to be that we might >> >get the async callback (nlmsvc_grant_deferred) at any time. What's to >> >stop it from arriving before we even put the block on the nlm_block >> >list? If this happens, then nlmsvc_grant_deferred() will print "grant >> >for unknown block" and then we'll wait forever for a grant that will >> >never come. >> >> Yes, there's a race but the client will retry every 30 seconds, so it won't >> wait forever. >OK, a blocking lock request will get retried in 30 seconds and work out >"ok". But a non-blocking request will get in big trouble. Let's say the A non-blocking lock doesn't request, and won't get, a callback. So I don't understand... >callback is invoked immediately after the vfs_lock_file call returns >FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED. At this point, the block is not on the nlm_block >list, so the callback routine will not be able to find it and mark it as >granted. Then nlmsvc_lock() will call nlmsvc_defer_lock_rqst(), put the >block on the nlm_block list, and eventually the request will timeout and >the client will get lck_denied. Meanwhile, the lock has actually been >granted, but nobody knows about it. Yes, this can happen, I've seen it too. Again, it's a bug in the protocol more than a bug in the clients. It gets even worse when retries occur. If the reply cache doesn't catch the duplicates (and it never does), all heck breaks out. > >> Depending on the kernel client version, there are some >> improvements we've tried over time to close the raciness a little. What >> exact client version are you working with? >> > >I maintain nfs/nlm server code for a NAS product, and so there is no >"exact client" but rather a multitude of clients that I have no control >over. All I can do is hack the server. We have been working around this I feel for ya (been there, done that) :-) >by using a semaphore to cover the vfs_lock_file() to >nlmsvc_insert_block() sequence in nlmsvc_lock() and also >nlmsvc_grant_deferred(). So if the callback arrives at a bad time, it >has to wait until the lock actually makes it onto the nlm_block list, >and so the status of the lock gets updated properly. Can you explain this further? If you're implementing the server, how do you know your callback "arrives at a bad time", by the DENIED result from the client? Another thing to worry about is the presence of NLM_CANCEL calls from the client which cross the callbacks. I sent a patch which improves the situation at the client, some time ago. Basically it was more willing to positively acknowledge a callback which didn't match the nlm_blocked list, by also checking whether the lock was actually being held. This was only half the solution however, it didn't close the protocol race, just the client one. You want the patch? I'll look for it. > >> Use NFSv4? ;-) >> > >I had a feeling you were going to say that. ;-) Unfortunately that >doesn't make NFSv3 and lockd go away. Yes, I know. Unfortunately there aren't any elegant solutions to the NLM protocol's flaws. Tom. -- 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
