Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 18:33 -0400, Andrew W Elble wrote: >> Not directly related to this patch series, but: >> >> I keep staring at the failure path in nfsd4_process_open2() from the >> call to nfs4_get_vfs_file() and thinking that there's a missing state >> change to the stateid that's still hashed before the mutex is dropped >> and the call to release_open_stateid()? >> > > If the seqid==1, so that we know this OPEN op created that stateid, > then it probably should be unhashed and marked as closed, since then we > know it represents no state. Otherwise, AFAICS it should keep its > current state + seqid. > > Do you want to send a patch, or should I update this patch series? Such > a fix probably does want to be a stable patch, since it will affect > clients that expect compliance with RFC5661/RFC7530. Please feel free to go ahead and update this series. Thanks, Andy -- Andrew W. Elble aweits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Infrastructure Engineer, Communications Technical Lead Rochester Institute of Technology PGP: BFAD 8461 4CCF DC95 DA2C B0EB 965B 082E 863E C912 -- 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
