DENIEL Philippe <philippe.deniel@xxxxxx> wrote on 12/07/2011 05:29:02 AM: > Hi Bruce, > > Yes I am talking about the seqid inside the stateid. The seqid inside the stateid also should be an unlikely place for a difference between NFS v4 and NFS v4.1 since NFS v4.1 still has the seqid inside the stateid. See 9.4. Stateid Seqid Values and Byte-Range Locks for locks (p. 189 of rfc5661). See 9.9. Open Upgrade and Downgrade on p. 192 for open. Frank > J. Bruce Fields a écrit : > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 01:11:05PM +0100, DENIEL Philippe wrote: > > > >> Hi Trond, > >> > >> many thanks for your reply. > >> In fact, the "rflag" in OP4_OPEN's reply is set to 6 = 4|2 = > >> OPEN4_RESULT_LOCKTYPE_POSIX|OPEN4_RESULT_CONFIRM > >> For some reason I do not understand, wireshark see > >> OPEN4_RESULT_LOCKTYPE_POSIX as an 'unknown' flag and do not print > >> it. Bug actually it seems like OPEN4_RESULT_LOCKTYPE_POSIX is set. > >> > >> Your mail made me have a closer look to my implementation of > >> OP4_OPEN and OP4_OPEN_CONFIRM in NFSv4.0 . Since the beginning > >> (since I met this bug), I suspect something related to seqids : it > >> does not occur in NFSv4.1 where seqids 's management is made in > >> OP4_SEQUENCE, at the beginning of the request. So I ran lock test#2 > >> on a kernel nfsd, capture the result and compared to what ganesha > >> produces. I saw a difference: > >> - when OP4_OPEN is invoked, the nfsd replies with a stateid > >> containing seqid=0. This seqid is passed to OP4_OPEN_CONFIRM which > >> confirms it and (if OK) replies with an updated stateid (seqid is > >> now 1) > >> - when ganesha does the same OP4_OPEN return a (unconfirmed) stateid > >> whose seqid is equal to 1, then OP4_OPEN_CONFIRM set this seqid to 2 > >> when confirming the stateid. > >> > > > > Sounds like you're talking about the seqid field that's contained in the > > stateid itself--I'd be suprised if the client cares about it. The spec > > does allow the client to inspect that field to decide what order opens > > were done in, but other than that a client normally treats the whole > > stateid as opaque. > > > > --b. > > > > > >> From your point of view, could this mess in seqid's management > >> produce the bug that I see when running lock test#2 ? > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Philippe > >> > >> Trond Myklebust a écrit : > >> > >>> On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 14:52 +0100, DENIEL Philippe wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> as you may know (we may have met at Bake-A-Thon), I am working > >>>> on NFS-Ganesha, a NFS server running in userspace. I currently > >>>> face an issue when running cthon04 test suite, during the "lock > >>>> step". > >>>> Client is linux 3.1.0-rc4, server is nfs-ganesha compiled with > >>>> FSAL_VFS support. Server is mounted via command "mount > >>>> -overs=4.minorversion=1,lock <server>:<path> /mnt" > >>>> > >>>> During the test#2 in "lock" tests, I got the following error: > >>>> > >>>> Creating parent/child synchronization pipes. > >>>> > >>>> Test #2 - Try to lock the whole file. > >>>> Parent: 2.0 - F_TLOCK [ 0, ENDING] > >>>> FAILED! > >>>> Parent: **** Expected success, returned errno=37... > >>>> Parent: **** Probably implementation error. > >>>> > >>>> ** PARENT pass 1 results: 0/0 pass, 0/0 warn, 1/1 fail (pass/total). > >>>> > >>>> ** CHILD pass 1 results: 0/0 pass, 0/0 warn, 0/0 fail (pass/total). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I made a wireshark capture of the packet (see attachement). > >>>> Apparently, the client does 2 compounds, one for OP4_OPEN and a > >>>> second to call OP4_OPEN_CONFIRM. > >>>> > >>> Hi Philippe, > >>> > >>> As far as I can see from the pcap file, your server isn't setting the > >>> OPEN4_RESULT_LOCKTYPE_POSIX flag in the OPEN reply, and so the client > >>> can't support posix locking semantics. In that case, it will return > >>> ENOLCK to all fcntl locking requests. > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> Trond > >>> > >> -- > >> 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 > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization > This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of > discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model > of a cloud services business. Read Now! > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/ > _______________________________________________ > Nfs-ganesha-devel mailing list > Nfs-ganesha-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs-ganesha-devel -- 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
