On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:42:51PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 13:31:52 -0500 > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 07:41:58AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > (cc'ing Tom here since we may want to consider providing guidance in > > > > the spec for this situation) > > > > > > > > Ok, I think both of you are right here :). Here's my interpretation: > > > > > > > > Olga is correct that the LOCK operation itself is safe since LOCK > > > > doesn't actually modify the contents of the file. What it's not safe to > > > > do is to trust that LOCK unless and until the DELEGRETURN is also > > > > successful. > > > > > > > > First, let's clarify the potential race that Trond pointed out: > > > > > > > > Suppose we have a delegation and delegated locks. That delegation is > > > > recalled and we do something like this: > > > > > > > > OPEN with DELEGATE_CUR: NFS4_OK > > > > LOCK: NFS4_OK > > > > LOCK: NFS4_OK > > > > ...(maybe more successful locks here)... > > > > DELEGRETURN: NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED > > > > > > > > ...at that point, we're screwed. > > > > > > > > The delegation was obviously revoked after we did the OPEN but before > > > > the DELEGRETURN. None of those LOCK requests can be trusted since > > > > another client may have opened the file at any point in there, acquired > > > > any one of those locks and then released it. > > > > > > > > For v4.1+ the client can do what Trond suggests. Check for > > > > SEQ4_STATUS_RECALLABLE_STATE_REVOKED in each LOCK response. If it's set > > > > then we can do the TEST_STATEID/FREE_STATEID dance. If the TEST_STATEID > > > > fails, then we must consider the most recently acquired lock lost. > > > > LOCKU it and give up trying to reclaim the rest of them. > > > > > > > > For v4.0, I'm not sure what the client can do other than wait until the > > > > DELEGRETURN. If that fails with NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED, then we'll just > > > > have to try to unwind the whole mess. Send LOCKUs for all of them and > > > > consider them all to be lost. > > > > > > > > Actually, it may be reasonable to just do the same thing for v4.1. The > > > > client tracks NFS_LOCK_LOST on a per-lockstateid basis, so once you have > > > > any unreclaimable lock, any I/O done with that stateid is going to fail > > > > anyway. You might as well just release any locks you do hold at that > > > > point. > > > > > > > > The other question is whether the server ought to have any role to play > > > > here. In principle it could track whether an open/lock stateid is > > > > descended from a still outstanding delegation, and revoke those > > > > stateids if the delegation is revoked. That would probably not be > > > > trivial to do with the current Linux server implementation, however. > > > > That sounds like a problem for whoever wants to implement support for > > administrative revocation of state. We don't really support it > > currently. > > > > Oops, right, except for the case where the delegation's revoked just > > because the client ran out of time doing the recall. In which case I > > think the final error's going to be either EXPIRED (4.0) or > > DELEG_REVOKED (4.1)? (Except I think the Linux server's returning > > BAD_STATEID in the 4.0 case, which looks wrong.) > > > > I'm not sure that that's right... RFC3530 says: > > NFS4ERR_EXPIRED A lease has expired that is being used in the > current operation. > > ...implicit in the scenario I layed out above is that the lease is > being maintained. It's just that the client failed to return the > delegation in time. So, BAD_STATEID may be correct, actually? Yes, I misread that EXPIRED text. That's a bit of a digression--in any case we agree that it's this late DELEGRETURN case that's the only real bug right now? On the client side I guess I can't think of anything better than your suggestion of waiting for the error on DELEGRETURN as you describe. And on the server side: > > > What the server could (and probably should) do is revoke all > > > open/lock/layout state for the clientid+file combination for which it > > > is also revoking the delegation. That means that all applications that > > > were using that file on that client would be screwed, but they > > > probably will be anyway if the file gets corrupted due to non-atomic > > > locking. That sounds harsh at first, but I guess it makes sense. --b. -- 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
