On 04/28/2016 12:05 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Chuck or Anna,
>>
>> If the patch is accepted, do you mind expanding the commit message to
>> include the wording about the LOCK and CB_RECALL race (so that it's
>> documented to look back into it).
>
> Anna's choice.
Sounds like a good idea. Is there any particular wording that you want? If not, then I can try to base something off of your email from Tuesday (4/26).
Anna
>
>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anna Schumaker
>> <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 04/28/2016 10:06 AM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:13 AM, Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The patch looks pretty straightforward to me, and it sounds like it fixes a few problems that people are seeing. One question (below):
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/28/2016 08:43 AM, William Dauchy wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Anna,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you have a look at this one please?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> William
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> I believe this patch also helps with a race between a LOCK and
>>>>>>> CB_RECALL. Application does a lock as the delegation is being
>>>>>>> recalled. The lock thread sees the delegated state and acquires a
>>>>>>> local lock. At the same time delegation doesn't see it the lock yet
>>>>>>> and returns the delegation. Application proceeds to do IO. It ends up
>>>>>>> using an open stateid for the IO (as there is no delegation stateid or
>>>>>>> lock stateid). The server is unaware of the lock so it can give that
>>>>>>> lock to somebody else. Yet this client thinks it has a local lock. It
>>>>>>> leads to inconsistent data between clients.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> At Connectathon 2016, we found that recent upstream Linux clients
>>>>>>>> would occasionally send a LOCK operation with a zero stateid. This
>>>>>>>> appeared to happen in close proximity to another thread returning
>>>>>>>> a delegation before unlinking the same file while it remained open.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Earlier, the client received a write delegation on this file and
>>>>>>>> returned the open stateid. Now, as it is getting ready to unlink the
>>>>>>>> file, it returns the write delegation. But there is still an open
>>>>>>>> file descriptor on that file, so the client must OPEN the file
>>>>>>>> again before it returns the delegation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since commit 24311f884189 ('NFSv4: Recovery of recalled read
>>>>>>>> delegations is broken'), nfs_open_delegation_recall() clears the
>>>>>>>> NFS_DELEGATED_STATE flag _before_ it sends the OPEN. This allows a
>>>>>>>> racing LOCK on the same inode to be put on the wire before the OPEN
>>>>>>>> operation has returned a valid open stateid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To eliminate this race, serialize delegation return with the
>>>>>>>> acquisition of a file lock on the same file. Adopt the same approach
>>>>>>>> as is used in the unlock path.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fixes: 24311f884189 ('NFSv4: Recovery of recalled read ... ')
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> Hi-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This fix appears to be both safe and effective. Please consider
>>>>>>>> it for v4.7 and for stable. Thanks!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 4 ++++
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>>>>>>> index 01bef06..c40f1b6 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -6054,6 +6054,7 @@ static int nfs41_lock_expired(struct nfs4_state *state, struct file_lock *reques
>>>>>>>> static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct file_lock *request)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(state->inode);
>>>>>>>> + struct nfs4_state_owner *sp = state->owner;
>>>>>>>> unsigned char fl_flags = request->fl_flags;
>>>>>>>> int status = -ENOLCK;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @@ -6068,6 +6069,7 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct file_lock
>>>>>>>> status = do_vfs_lock(state->inode, request);
>>>>>>>> if (status < 0)
>>>>>>>> goto out;
>>>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&sp->so_delegreturn_mutex);
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I can tell, the first call to do_vfs_lock() in this function is used to test if we can take the lock locally. Do we need to worry about this racing with delegreturn, too?
>>>>
>>>> When I included that call in the critical section,
>>>> cthon04 locking tests deadlocked.
>>>
>>> Got it. Thanks for checking!
>>>
>>> Anna
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Anna
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
>>>>>>>> if (test_bit(NFS_DELEGATED_STATE, &state->flags)) {
>>>>>>>> /* Yes: cache locks! */
>>>>>>>> @@ -6075,9 +6077,11 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct file_lock
>>>>>>>> request->fl_flags = fl_flags & ~FL_SLEEP;
>>>>>>>> status = do_vfs_lock(state->inode, request);
>>>>>>>> up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
>>>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&sp->so_delegreturn_mutex);
>>>>>>>> goto out;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
>>>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&sp->so_delegreturn_mutex);
>>>>>>>> status = _nfs4_do_setlk(state, cmd, request, NFS_LOCK_NEW);
>>>>>>>> out:
>>>>>>>> request->fl_flags = fl_flags;
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Chuck Lever
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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
