On Mon, 2024-07-08 at 08:58 -0400, Youzhong Yang wrote:
> Thank you Jeff for your invaluable insights. I was leaning towards
> adding a new list_head too, and tested this approach on kernel 6.6 by
> continuously hammering the server with heavy nfs load for the last few
> days, not a single leak.
>
> Here goes the patch (based on Linux kernel master branch), please review:
>
> From: Youzhong Yang <youzhong@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:25:40 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] nfsd: fix nfsd_file leaking due to mixed use of nf->nf_lru
>
> nfsd_file_put() in one thread can race with another thread doing
> garbage collection (running nfsd_file_gc() -> list_lru_walk() ->
> nfsd_file_lru_cb()):
>
> * In nfsd_file_put(), nf->nf_ref is 1, so it tries to do nfsd_file_lru_add().
> * nfsd_file_lru_add() returns true (with NFSD_FILE_REFERENCED bit set)
> * garbage collector kicks in, nfsd_file_lru_cb() clears REFERENCED bit and
> returns LRU_ROTATE.
> * garbage collector kicks in again, nfsd_file_lru_cb() now
> decrements nf->nf_ref
> to 0, runs nfsd_file_unhash(), removes it from the LRU and adds to
> the dispose
> list [list_lru_isolate_move(lru, &nf->nf_lru, head)]
> * nfsd_file_put() detects NFSD_FILE_HASHED bit is cleared, so it
> tries to remove
> the 'nf' from the LRU [if (!nfsd_file_lru_remove(nf))]. The 'nf'
> has been added
> to the 'dispose' list by nfsd_file_lru_cb(), so
> nfsd_file_lru_remove(nf) simply
> treats it as part of the LRU and removes it, which leads to its removal from
> the 'dispose' list.
> * At this moment, 'nf' is unhashed with its nf_ref being 0, and not
> on the LRU.
> nfsd_file_put() continues its execution [if
> (refcount_dec_and_test(&nf->nf_ref))],
> as nf->nf_ref is already 0, nf->nf_ref is set to
> REFCOUNT_SATURATED, and the 'nf'
> gets no chance of being freed.
>
> nfsd_file_put() can also race with nfsd_file_cond_queue():
> * In nfsd_file_put(), nf->nf_ref is 1, so it tries to do nfsd_file_lru_add().
> * nfsd_file_lru_add() sets REFERENCED bit and returns true.
> * Some userland application runs 'exportfs -f' or something like
> that, which triggers
> __nfsd_file_cache_purge() -> nfsd_file_cond_queue().
> * In nfsd_file_cond_queue(), it runs [if (!nfsd_file_unhash(nf))],
> unhash is done
> successfully.
> * nfsd_file_cond_queue() runs [if (!nfsd_file_get(nf))], now
> nf->nf_ref goes to 2.
> * nfsd_file_cond_queue() runs [if (nfsd_file_lru_remove(nf))], it succeeds.
> * nfsd_file_cond_queue() runs [if (refcount_sub_and_test(decrement,
> &nf->nf_ref))]
> (with "decrement" being 2), so the nf->nf_ref goes to 0, the 'nf'
> is added to the
> dispose list [list_add(&nf->nf_lru, dispose)]
> * nfsd_file_put() detects NFSD_FILE_HASHED bit is cleared, so it
> tries to remove
> the 'nf' from the LRU [if (!nfsd_file_lru_remove(nf))], although
> the 'nf' is not
> in the LRU, but it is linked in the 'dispose' list,
> nfsd_file_lru_remove() simply
> treats it as part of the LRU and removes it. This leads to its removal from
> the 'dispose' list!
> * Now nf->ref is 0, unhashed. nfsd_file_put() continues its execution and set
> nf->nf_ref to REFCOUNT_SATURATED.
>
> As shown in the above analysis, using nf_lru for both the LRU list and
> dispose list
> can cause the leaks. This patch adds a new list_head nf_gc in struct
> nfsd_file, and uses
> it for the dispose list. It's not expected to have a nfsd_file
> unhashed but it's not
> added to the dispose list, so in nfsd_file_cond_queue() and
> nfsd_file_lru_cb() nfsd_file
> is unhashed after being added to the dispose list.
>
I don't see where we require the object to be either hashed or on the
dispose list. I think you probably just want to do a patch that
changes the dispose list to use a dedicated list_head without
reordering when the these things are unhashed.
> Signed-off-by: Youzhong Yang <youzhong@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfsd/filecache.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
> fs/nfsd/filecache.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> index ad9083ca144b..3aef2ddfce94 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> @@ -216,6 +216,7 @@ nfsd_file_alloc(struct net *net, struct inode
> *inode, unsigned char need,
> return NULL;
>
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&nf->nf_lru);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&nf->nf_gc);
> nf->nf_birthtime = ktime_get();
> nf->nf_file = NULL;
> nf->nf_cred = get_current_cred();
> @@ -393,8 +394,8 @@ nfsd_file_dispose_list(struct list_head *dispose)
> struct nfsd_file *nf;
>
> while (!list_empty(dispose)) {
> - nf = list_first_entry(dispose, struct nfsd_file, nf_lru);
> - list_del_init(&nf->nf_lru);
> + nf = list_first_entry(dispose, struct nfsd_file, nf_gc);
> + list_del_init(&nf->nf_gc);
> nfsd_file_free(nf);
> }
> }
> @@ -411,12 +412,12 @@ nfsd_file_dispose_list_delayed(struct list_head *dispose)
> {
> while(!list_empty(dispose)) {
> struct nfsd_file *nf = list_first_entry(dispose,
> - struct nfsd_file, nf_lru);
> + struct nfsd_file, nf_gc);
> struct nfsd_net *nn = net_generic(nf->nf_net, nfsd_net_id);
> struct nfsd_fcache_disposal *l = nn->fcache_disposal;
>
> spin_lock(&l->lock);
> - list_move_tail(&nf->nf_lru, &l->freeme);
> + list_move_tail(&nf->nf_gc, &l->freeme);
> spin_unlock(&l->lock);
> svc_wake_up(nn->nfsd_serv);
> }
> @@ -502,8 +503,10 @@ nfsd_file_lru_cb(struct list_head *item, struct
> list_lru_one *lru,
> }
>
> /* Refcount went to zero. Unhash it and queue it to the dispose list */
> + list_lru_isolate(lru, &nf->nf_lru);
> + list_add(&nf->nf_gc, head);
> + /* Unhash after removing from LRU and adding to dispose list */
> nfsd_file_unhash(nf);
> - list_lru_isolate_move(lru, &nf->nf_lru, head);
I don't see the point in reordering these operations. Hashing is all
about making the thing findable by nfsd operations. The _last_ thing we
want to do is put it on the dispose list while the thing can still be
found by nfsd threads doing operations.
> this_cpu_inc(nfsd_file_evictions);
> trace_nfsd_file_gc_disposed(nf);
> return LRU_REMOVED;
> @@ -565,7 +568,7 @@ nfsd_file_cond_queue(struct nfsd_file *nf, struct
> list_head *dispose)
> int decrement = 1;
>
> /* If we raced with someone else unhashing, ignore it */
> - if (!nfsd_file_unhash(nf))
> + if (!test_bit(NFSD_FILE_HASHED, &nf->nf_flags))
The above change looks wrong. I don't think we need to change this.
> return;
>
> /* If we can't get a reference, ignore it */
> @@ -578,7 +581,9 @@ nfsd_file_cond_queue(struct nfsd_file *nf, struct
> list_head *dispose)
>
> /* If refcount goes to 0, then put on the dispose list */
> if (refcount_sub_and_test(decrement, &nf->nf_ref)) {
> - list_add(&nf->nf_lru, dispose);
> + list_add(&nf->nf_gc, dispose);
> + /* Unhash after adding to dispose list */
> + nfsd_file_unhash(nf);
This too looks wrong? Maybe I'm unclear on the race you're trying to
fix with this? What's the harm in unhashing it early?
> trace_nfsd_file_closing(nf);
> }
> }
> @@ -654,8 +659,8 @@ nfsd_file_close_inode_sync(struct inode *inode)
>
> nfsd_file_queue_for_close(inode, &dispose);
> while (!list_empty(&dispose)) {
> - nf = list_first_entry(&dispose, struct nfsd_file, nf_lru);
> - list_del_init(&nf->nf_lru);
> + nf = list_first_entry(&dispose, struct nfsd_file, nf_gc);
> + list_del_init(&nf->nf_gc);
> nfsd_file_free(nf);
> }
> }
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/filecache.h b/fs/nfsd/filecache.h
> index c61884def906..3fbec24eea6c 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/filecache.h
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/filecache.h
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ struct nfsd_file {
>
> struct nfsd_file_mark *nf_mark;
> struct list_head nf_lru;
> + struct list_head nf_gc;
> struct rcu_head nf_rcu;
> ktime_t nf_birthtime;
> };
> --
> 2.34.1
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:14 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 16:46 -0400, Youzhong Yang wrote:
> > > Thank you Chuck. Here are my quick answers to your comments:
> > >
> > > - I don't have a quick reproducer. I reproduced it by using hundreds
> > > of nfs clients generating +600K ops under our workload in the testing
> > > environment. Theoretically it should be possible to simplify the
> > > reproduction but I am still working on it.
> > >
> > > - I understand zfs is an out-of-tree file system. That's fine. But
> > > this leaking can happen to any file system, and leaking is not a good
> > > thing no matter what file system it is.
> > >
> > > - I will try to come up with a reproducer using xfs or btrfs if possible.
> > >
> > > Now back to the problem itself, here are my findings:
> > >
> > > - nfsd_file_put() in one thread can race with another thread doing
> > > garbage collection (running nfsd_file_gc() -> list_lru_walk() ->
> > > nfsd_file_lru_cb()):
> > >
> > > * In nfsd_file_put(), nf->nf_ref is 1, so it tries to do nfsd_file_lru_add().
> > > * nfsd_file_lru_add() returns true (thus NFSD_FILE_REFERENCED bit
> > > set for nf->nf_flags)
> > > * garbage collector kicks in, nfsd_file_lru_cb() clears REFERENCED
> > > bit and returns LRU_ROTATE.
> > > * garbage collector kicks in again, nfsd_file_lru_cb() now
> > > decrements nf->nf_ref to 0, runs nfsd_file_unhash(), removes it from
> > > the LRU and adds to the dispose list [list_lru_isolate_move(lru,
> > > &nf->nf_lru, head);]
> > > * nfsd_file_put() detects NFSD_FILE_HASHED bit is cleared, so it
> > > tries to remove the 'nf' from the LRU [if (!nfsd_file_lru_remove(nf))]
> > > * The 'nf' has been added to the 'dispose' list by
> > > nfsd_file_lru_cb(), so nfsd_file_lru_remove(nf) simply treats it as
> > > part of the LRU and removes it, which leads it to be removed from the
> > > 'dispose' list.
> > > * At this moment, nf->nf_ref is 0, it's unhashed, and not on the
> > > LRU. nfsd_file_put() continues its execution [if
> > > (refcount_dec_and_test(&nf->nf_ref))], as nf->nf_ref is already 0, now
> > > bad thing happens: nf->nf_ref is set to REFCOUNT_SATURATED, and the
> > > 'nf' is leaked.
> > >
> > > To make this happen, the right timing is crucial. It can be reproduced
> > > by adding artifical delays in filecache.c, or hammering the nfsd with
> > > tons of ops.
> > >
> > > - Let's see how nfsd_file_put() can race with nfsd_file_cond_queue():
> > > * In nfsd_file_put(), nf->nf_ref is 1, so it tries to do nfsd_file_lru_add().
> > > * nfsd_file_lru_add() sets REFERENCED bit and returns true.
> > > * 'exportfs -f' or something like that triggers
> > > __nfsd_file_cache_purge() -> nfsd_file_cond_queue().
> > > * In nfsd_file_cond_queue(), it runs [if (!nfsd_file_unhash(nf))],
> > > unhash is done successfully.
> > > * nfsd_file_cond_queue() runs [if (!nfsd_file_get(nf))], now
> > > nf->nf_ref goes to 2.
> > > * nfsd_file_cond_queue() runs [if (nfsd_file_lru_remove(nf))], it succeeds.
> > > * nfsd_file_cond_queue() runs [if (refcount_sub_and_test(decrement,
> > > &nf->nf_ref))] (with "decrement" being 2), so the nf->nf_ref goes to
> > > 0, the 'nf' is added to the dispost list [list_add(&nf->nf_lru,
> > > dispose)]
> > > * nfsd_file_put() detects NFSD_FILE_HASHED bit is cleared, so it
> > > tries to remove the 'nf' from the LRU [if
> > > (!nfsd_file_lru_remove(nf))], although the 'nf' is not in the LRU, but
> > > it is linked in the 'dispose' list, nfsd_file_lru_remove() simply
> > > treats it as part of the LRU and removes it. This leads to its removal
> > > from the 'dispose' list!
> > > * Now nf->ref is 0, unhashed. nfsd_file_put() continues its
> > > execution and sets nf->nf_ref to REFCOUNT_SATURATED.
> > >
> > > The purpose of nf->nf_lru is problematic. As you can see, it is used
> > > for the LRU list, and also the 'dispose' list. Adding another 'struct
> > > list_head' specifically for the 'dispose' list seems to be a better
> > > way of fixing this race condition. Either way works for me.
> > >
> > > Would you agree my above analysis makes sense? Thanks.
> > >
> >
> > I think so. It's been a while since I've done much work in this code,
> > but it does sound like there is a race in the LRU handling.
> >
> >
> > Like Chuck said, the nf->nf_lru list should be safe to use for multiple
> > purposes, but that's only the case if we're not using that list as an
> > indicator.
> >
> > The list_lru code does check this:
> >
> > if (!list_empty(item)) {
> >
> > ...so if we ever check this while it's sitting on the dispose list, it
> > will handle it incorrectly. It sounds like that's the root cause of the
> > problem you're seeing?
> >
> > If so, then maybe a separate list_head for disposal would be better.
> >
> > > Here is my patch with signed-off-by:
> > >
> > > From: Youzhong Yang <youzhong@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 06:45:22 -0400
> > > Subject: [PATCH] nfsd: fix nfsd_file leaking due to race condition and early
> > > unhash
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Youzhong Yang <youzhong@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/nfsd/filecache.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> > > index 1a6d5d000b85..2323829f7208 100644
> > > --- a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> > > @@ -389,6 +389,17 @@ nfsd_file_put(struct nfsd_file *nf)
> > > if (!nfsd_file_lru_remove(nf))
> > > return;
> > > }
> > > + /*
> > > + * Racing with nfsd_file_cond_queue() or nfsd_file_lru_cb(),
> > > + * it's unhashed but then removed from the dispose list,
> > > + * so we need to free it.
> > > + */
> > > + if (refcount_read(&nf->nf_ref) == 0 &&
> >
> > A refcount_read in this path is a red flag to me. Anytime you're just
> > looking at the refcount without changing anything just screams out
> > "race condition".
> >
> > In this case, what guarantee is there that this won't run afoul of the
> > timing? We could check this and find out it's 1 just before it goes to
> > 0 and you check the other conditions.
> >
> > Does anything prevent that?
> >
> > > + !test_bit(NFSD_FILE_HASHED, &nf->nf_flags) &&
> > > + list_empty(&nf->nf_lru)) {
> > > + nfsd_file_free(nf);
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > > }
> > > if (refcount_dec_and_test(&nf->nf_ref))
> > > nfsd_file_free(nf);
> > > @@ -576,7 +587,7 @@ nfsd_file_cond_queue(struct nfsd_file *nf, struct
> > > list_head *dispose)
> > > int decrement = 1;
> > >
> > > /* If we raced with someone else unhashing, ignore it */
> > > - if (!nfsd_file_unhash(nf))
> > > + if (!test_bit(NFSD_FILE_HASHED, &nf->nf_flags))
> > > return;
> >
> > Same here: you're just testing for the HASHED bit, but could this also
> > race with someone who is setting it just after you get here. Why is
> > that not a problem?
> >
> > >
> > > /* If we can't get a reference, ignore it */
> > > @@ -590,6 +601,7 @@ nfsd_file_cond_queue(struct nfsd_file *nf, struct
> > > list_head *dispose)
> > > /* If refcount goes to 0, then put on the dispose list */
> > > if (refcount_sub_and_test(decrement, &nf->nf_ref)) {
> > > list_add(&nf->nf_lru, dispose);
> > > + nfsd_file_unhash(nf);
> > > trace_nfsd_file_closing(nf);
> > > }
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 2:21 PM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 10:12:33AM -0400, Youzhong Yang wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to report a nfsd_file leaking issue and propose a fix for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I tested Linux kernel 6.8 and 6.6, I noticed nfsd_file leaks
> > > > > which led to undestroyable file systems (zfs),
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the report. Some initial comments:
> > > >
> > > > - Do you have a specific reproducer? In other words, what is the
> > > > simplest program that can run on an NFS client that will trigger
> > > > this leak, and can you post it?
> > > >
> > > > - "zfs" is an out-of-tree file system, so it's not directly
> > > > supported for NFSD.
> > > >
> > > > - The guidelines for patch submission require us to fix issues in
> > > > upstream Linux first (currently that's v6.10-rc6). Then that fix
> > > > can be backported to older stable kernels like 6.6.
> > > >
> > > > Can you reproduce the leak with one of the in-kernel filesystems
> > > > (either xfs or btrfs would be great) and with NFSD in 6.10-rc6?
> > > >
> > > > One more comment below.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > here are some examples:
> > > > >
> > > > > crash> struct nfsd_file -x ffff88e160db0460
> > > > > struct nfsd_file {
> > > > > nf_rlist = {
> > > > > rhead = {
> > > > > next = 0xffff8921fa2392f1
> > > > > },
> > > > > next = 0x0
> > > > > },
> > > > > nf_inode = 0xffff8882bc312ef8,
> > > > > nf_file = 0xffff88e2015b1500,
> > > > > nf_cred = 0xffff88e3ab0e7800,
> > > > > nf_net = 0xffffffff83d41600 <init_net>,
> > > > > nf_flags = 0x8,
> > > > > nf_ref = {
> > > > > refs = {
> > > > > counter = 0xc0000000
> > > > > }
> > > > > },
> > > > > nf_may = 0x4,
> > > > > nf_mark = 0xffff88e1bddfb320,
> > > > > nf_lru = {
> > > > > next = 0xffff88e160db04a8,
> > > > > prev = 0xffff88e160db04a8
> > > > > },
> > > > > nf_rcu = {
> > > > > next = 0x10000000000,
> > > > > func = 0x0
> > > > > },
> > > > > nf_birthtime = 0x73d22fc1728
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > crash> struct nfsd_file.nf_flags,nf_ref.refs.counter,nf_lru,nf_file -x
> > > > > ffff88839a53d850
> > > > > nf_flags = 0x8,
> > > > > nf_ref.refs.counter = 0x0
> > > > > nf_lru = {
> > > > > next = 0xffff88839a53d898,
> > > > > prev = 0xffff88839a53d898
> > > > > },
> > > > > nf_file = 0xffff88810ede8700,
> > > > >
> > > > > crash> struct nfsd_file.nf_flags,nf_ref.refs.counter,nf_lru,nf_file -x
> > > > > ffff88c32b11e850
> > > > > nf_flags = 0x8,
> > > > > nf_ref.refs.counter = 0x0
> > > > > nf_lru = {
> > > > > next = 0xffff88c32b11e898,
> > > > > prev = 0xffff88c32b11e898
> > > > > },
> > > > > nf_file = 0xffff88c20a701c00,
> > > > >
> > > > > crash> struct nfsd_file.nf_flags,nf_ref.refs.counter,nf_lru,nf_file -x
> > > > > ffff88e372709700
> > > > > nf_flags = 0xc,
> > > > > nf_ref.refs.counter = 0x0
> > > > > nf_lru = {
> > > > > next = 0xffff88e372709748,
> > > > > prev = 0xffff88e372709748
> > > > > },
> > > > > nf_file = 0xffff88e0725e6400,
> > > > >
> > > > > crash> struct nfsd_file.nf_flags,nf_ref.refs.counter,nf_lru,nf_file -x
> > > > > ffff8982864944d0
> > > > > nf_flags = 0xc,
> > > > > nf_ref.refs.counter = 0x0
> > > > > nf_lru = {
> > > > > next = 0xffff898286494518,
> > > > > prev = 0xffff898286494518
> > > > > },
> > > > > nf_file = 0xffff89803c0ff700,
> > > > >
> > > > > The leak occurs when nfsd_file_put() races with nfsd_file_cond_queue()
> > > > > or nfsd_file_lru_cb(). With the following patch, I haven't observed
> > > > > any leak after a few days heavy nfs load:
> > > >
> > > > Our patch submission guidelines require a Signed-off-by:
> > > > line at the end of the patch description. See the "Sign your work -
> > > > the Developer's Certificate of Origin" section of
> > > >
> > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.10-rc6
> > > >
> > > > (Needed here in case your fix is acceptable).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> > > > > index 1a6d5d000b85..2323829f7208 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> > > > > @@ -389,6 +389,17 @@ nfsd_file_put(struct nfsd_file *nf)
> > > > > if (!nfsd_file_lru_remove(nf))
> > > > > return;
> > > > > }
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Racing with nfsd_file_cond_queue() or nfsd_file_lru_cb(),
> > > > > + * it's unhashed but then removed from the dispose list,
> > > > > + * so we need to free it.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (refcount_read(&nf->nf_ref) == 0 &&
> > > > > + !test_bit(NFSD_FILE_HASHED, &nf->nf_flags) &&
> > > > > + list_empty(&nf->nf_lru)) {
> > > > > + nfsd_file_free(nf);
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > }
> > > > > if (refcount_dec_and_test(&nf->nf_ref))
> > > > > nfsd_file_free(nf);
> > > > > @@ -576,7 +587,7 @@ nfsd_file_cond_queue(struct nfsd_file *nf, struct
> > > > > list_head *dispose)
> > > > > int decrement = 1;
> > > > >
> > > > > /* If we raced with someone else unhashing, ignore it */
> > > > > - if (!nfsd_file_unhash(nf))
> > > > > + if (!test_bit(NFSD_FILE_HASHED, &nf->nf_flags))
> > > > > return;
> > > > >
> > > > > /* If we can't get a reference, ignore it */
> > > > > @@ -590,6 +601,7 @@ nfsd_file_cond_queue(struct nfsd_file *nf, struct
> > > > > list_head *dispose)
> > > > > /* If refcount goes to 0, then put on the dispose list */
> > > > > if (refcount_sub_and_test(decrement, &nf->nf_ref)) {
> > > > > list_add(&nf->nf_lru, dispose);
> > > > > + nfsd_file_unhash(nf);
> > > > > trace_nfsd_file_closing(nf);
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Please kindly review the patch and let me know if it makes sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > -Youzhong
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Chuck Lever
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
