On Sat, 2016-11-12 at 06:08 -0500, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > I've been seeing the following on a modified version of generic/089 > that gets the client stuck sending LOCK with NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID. > > 1. Client has open stateid A, sends a CLOSE > 2. Client sends OPEN with same owner > 3. Client sends another OPEN with same owner > 4. Client gets a reply to OPEN in 3, stateid is B.2 (stateid B sequence 2) > 5. Client does LOCK,LOCKU,FREE_STATEID from B.2 > 6. Client gets a reply to CLOSE in 1 > 7. Client gets reply to OPEN in 2, stateid is B.1 > 8. Client sends LOCK with B.1 - OLD_STATEID, now stuck in a loop > > The CLOSE response in 6 causes us to clear NFS_OPEN_STATE, so that the OPEN > response in 7 is able to update the open_stateid even though it has a lower > sequence number. > > I think this case could be handled by never updating the open_stateid if the > stateids match but the sequence number of the new state is less than the > current open_state. > What kernel is this on? Yes, that seems wrong. The client should be picking B.2 for the open stateid to use. I think that decision of whether to take a seqid is made in nfs_need_update_open_stateid. The logic in there looks correct to me at first glance though. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
