On Mar 5, 2014, at 6:40, Andy Adamson <androsadamson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Trond Myklebust > <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> If the open stateid could not be recovered, or the file locks were lost, >> then we should fail the truncate() operation altogether. >> >> Reported-by: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1393954269-3974-1-git-send-email-andros@xxxxxxxxxx >> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 9 ++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >> index 44e088dc357c..daf41182ecfb 100644 >> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >> @@ -2398,13 +2398,16 @@ static int _nfs4_do_setattr(struct inode *inode, struct rpc_cred *cred, >> >> if (nfs4_copy_delegation_stateid(&arg.stateid, inode, fmode)) { >> /* Use that stateid */ >> - } else if (truncate && state != NULL && nfs4_valid_open_stateid(state)) { >> + } else if (truncate && state != NULL) { >> struct nfs_lockowner lockowner = { >> .l_owner = current->files, >> .l_pid = current->tgid, >> }; >> - nfs4_select_rw_stateid(&arg.stateid, state, FMODE_WRITE, >> - &lockowner); >> + if (!nfs4_valid_open_stateid(state)) >> + return -EBADF; >> + if (nfs4_select_rw_stateid(&arg.stateid, state, FMODE_WRITE, >> + &lockowner) < 0) > > AFICS this means -EIO = lost lock. Why fail the setattr? the file > handle is not bad. Why not send a ZERO_STATEID? At any rate, -EBADF > looks wrong to me. What should we use instead of EBADF? EIO doesn’t really help you figure out what is wrong or how to fix it. _________________________________ Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
