On Sat, 2016-11-12 at 13:03 -0500, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > > On 12 Nov 2016, at 11:52, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2016-11-12 at 10:31 -0500, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > > > > > > On 12 Nov 2016, at 7:54, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > On v4.9-rc2 with a couple fixups. Without them, I can't test long > > > enough to > > > reproduce this race. I don't think any of those are involved in this > > > problem, though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > nfs_need_update_open_stateid() will return true if NFS_OPEN_STATE is > > > unset. > > > That's the precondition set up by steps 1-6. Perhaps it should not > > > update > > > the stateid if they match but the sequence number is less, and still set > > > NFS_OPEN_STATE once more. That will fix _this_ case. Are there other > > > cases > > > where that would be a problem? > > > > > > Ben > > > > That seems wrong. > > I'm not sure what you mean: what seems wrong? > Sorry, it seems wrong that the client would issue the LOCK with B.1 there. > > > > The only close was sent in step 1, and that was for a > > completely different stateid (A rather than B). It seems likely that > > that is where the bug is. > > I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make.. > > Even though the close was sent in step 1, the response wasn't processed > until step 6.. Not really a point per-se, I was just saying where I think the bug might be... When you issue a CLOSE, you issue it vs. a particular stateid (stateid "A" in this case). Once the open stateid has been superseded by "B", the closing of "A" should have no effect. Perhaps nfs_clear_open_stateid needs to check and see whether the open stateid has been superseded before doing its thing? -- 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
