On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 12:14:36PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2016-08-07 at 18:22 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2016-08-07 at 14:53 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When running LTP's nfslock01 test, the Linux client can send a LOCK
> >>> and a FREE_STATEID request at the same time. The LOCK uses the same
> >>> lockowner as the stateid sent in the FREE_STATEID request.
> >>>
> >>> The outcome is:
> >>>
> >>> Frame 115025 C FREE_STATEID stateid 2/A
> >>> Frame 115026 C LOCK offset 672128 len 64
> >>> Frame 115029 R FREE_STATEID NFS4_OK
> >>> Frame 115030 R LOCK stateid 3/A
> >
> > Oh, to be clear here -- I assume this a lk_is_new lock (with an open
> > stateid in it). Right?
>
> Opcode: LOCK (12)
> locktype: WRITEW_LT (4)
> reclaim?: No
> offset: 672000
> length: 64
> new lock owner?: Yes
> seqid: 0x00000000
> stateid
> [StateID Hash: 0x6f7e]
> seqid: 0x00000002
> Data: a95169579501000007000000
> lock_seqid: 0x00000000
> Owner
> clientid: 0xa951695795010000
> Data: <DATA>
> length: 20
> contents: <DATA>
>
> The first appearance of that stateid is in an earlier OPEN reply:
>
> Opcode: OPEN (18)
> Status: NFS4_OK (0)
> stateid
> [StateID Hash: 0x6f7e]
> seqid: 0x00000002
> Data: a95169579501000007000000
> change_info
> Atomic: No
> changeid (before): 0
> changeid (after): 0
> result flags: 0x00000004, locktype posix
> .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..0. = confirm: False
> .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .1.. = locktype posix: True
> .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 0... = preserve unlinked: False
> .... .... .... .... .... .... ..0. .... = may notify lock: False
> Delegation Type: OPEN_DELEGATE_NONE (0)
Oh, the client behavior makes more sense, then.
Still, did we establish for certain that the client isn't required to
serialize here?
We'd want it fixed either way, but it'd be nice to know.
--b.
>
> >>> Frame 115034 C WRITE stateid 0/A offset 672128 len 64
> >>> Frame 115038 R WRITE NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID
> >>>
> >>> In other words, the server returns stateid A in a successful LOCK
> >>> reply, but it has already released it. Subsequent uses of the
> >>> stateid fail.
> >>>
> >>> To address this, protect the generation check in nfsd4_free_stateid
> >>> with the st_mutex. This should guarantee that only one of two
> >>> outcomes occurs: either LOCK returns a fresh valid stateid, or
> >>> FREE_STATEID returns NFS4ERR_LOCKS_HELD.
> >>>
> >>> Reported-by: Alexey Kodanev <alexey.kodanev@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Fix-suggested-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 19 ++++++++++++-------
> >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> >>> index b921123..07dc1aa 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> >>> @@ -4911,19 +4911,20 @@ nfsd4_free_stateid(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
> >>> struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> >>> ret = nfserr_locks_held;
> >>> break;
> >>> case NFS4_LOCK_STID:
> >>> + atomic_inc(&s->sc_count);
> >>> + spin_unlock(&cl->cl_lock);
> >>> + stp = openlockstateid(s);
> >>> + mutex_lock(&stp->st_mutex);
> >>> ret = check_stateid_generation(stateid, &s-
> >>>>
> >>>> sc_stateid, 1);
> >>> if (ret)
> >>> - break;
> >>> - stp = openlockstateid(s);
> >>> + goto out_mutex_unlock;
> >>> ret = nfserr_locks_held;
> >>> if (check_for_locks(stp->st_stid.sc_file,
> >>> lockowner(stp-
> >>>> st_stateowner)))
> >>> - break;
> >>> - WARN_ON(!unhash_lock_stateid(stp));
> >>> - spin_unlock(&cl->cl_lock);
> >>> - nfs4_put_stid(s);
> >>> + goto out_mutex_unlock;
> >>> + release_lock_stateid(stp);
> >>> ret = nfs_ok;
> >>> - goto out;
> >>> + goto out_mutex_unlock;
> >>> case NFS4_REVOKED_DELEG_STID:
> >>> dp = delegstateid(s);
> >>> list_del_init(&dp->dl_recall_lru);
> >>> @@ -4937,6 +4938,10 @@ out_unlock:
> >>> spin_unlock(&cl->cl_lock);
> >>> out:
> >>> return ret;
> >>> +out_mutex_unlock:
> >>> + mutex_unlock(&stp->st_mutex);
> >>> + nfs4_put_stid(s);
> >>> + goto out;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> static inline int
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Looks good to me.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Hmm...I think this is not a complete fix though. We also need something
> > like this patch:
>
> OK, I'll create a series and add this patch.
>
>
> > --------------[snip]---------------
> >
> > [PATCH] nfsd: don't return an already-unhashed lock stateid after
> > taking mutex
> >
> > nfsd4_lock will take the st_mutex before working with the stateid it
> > gets, but between the time when we drop the cl_lock and take the mutex,
> > the stateid could become unhashed (a'la FREE_STATEID). If that happens
> > the lock stateid returned to the client will be forgotten.
> >
> > Fix this by first moving the st_mutex acquisition into
> > lookup_or_create_lock_state. Then, have it check to see if the lock
> > stateid is still hashed after taking the mutex. If it's not, then put
> > the stateid and try the find/create again.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > index 5d6a28af0f42..1235b1661703 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > @@ -5653,7 +5653,7 @@ static __be32
> > lookup_or_create_lock_state(struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> > struct nfs4_ol_stateid *ost,
> > struct nfsd4_lock *lock,
> > - struct nfs4_ol_stateid **lst, bool *new)
> > + struct nfs4_ol_stateid **plst, bool *new)
> > {
> > __be32 status;
> > struct nfs4_file *fi = ost->st_stid.sc_file;
> > @@ -5661,7 +5661,9 @@ lookup_or_create_lock_state(struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> > struct nfs4_client *cl = oo->oo_owner.so_client;
> > struct inode *inode = d_inode(cstate->current_fh.fh_dentry);
> > struct nfs4_lockowner *lo;
> > + struct nfs4_ol_stateid *lst;
> > unsigned int strhashval;
> > + bool hashed;
> >
> > lo = find_lockowner_str(cl, &lock->lk_new_owner);
> > if (!lo) {
> > @@ -5677,12 +5679,27 @@ lookup_or_create_lock_state(struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > - *lst = find_or_create_lock_stateid(lo, fi, inode, ost, new);
> > - if (*lst == NULL) {
> > +retry:
> > + lst = find_or_create_lock_stateid(lo, fi, inode, ost, new);
> > + if (lst == NULL) {
> > status = nfserr_jukebox;
> > goto out;
> > }
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&lst->st_mutex);
> > +
> > + /* See if it's still hashed to avoid race with FREE_STATEID */
> > + spin_lock(&cl->cl_lock);
> > + hashed = list_empty(&lst->st_perfile);
> > + spin_unlock(&cl->cl_lock);
> > +
> > + if (!hashed) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&lst->st_mutex);
> > + nfs4_put_stid(&lst->st_stid);
> > + goto retry;
> > + }
> > status = nfs_ok;
> > + *plst = lst;
> > out:
> > nfs4_put_stateowner(&lo->lo_owner);
> > return status;
> > @@ -5752,8 +5769,6 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> > goto out;
> > status = lookup_or_create_lock_state(cstate, open_stp, lock,
> > &lock_stp, &new);
> > - if (status == nfs_ok)
> > - mutex_lock(&lock_stp->st_mutex);
> > } else {
> > status = nfs4_preprocess_seqid_op(cstate,
> > lock->lk_old_lock_seqid,
> > --
> > 2.7.4
>
> --
> 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
