On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 15:06 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-07-29 at 22:40 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > The patch to fix the case where a lock request was interrupted
> > ended up
> > changing default handling of errors such as NFS4ERR_DENIED and
> > caused the
> > client to immediately resend the lock request. Let's do a partial
> > revert
> > of that request so that the default is now to exit, but change the
> > way
> > we handle resends to take into account the fact that the user may
> > have
> > interrupted the request.
> >
> > Reported-by: Kenneth Johansson <ken@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: a3cf9bca2ace ("NFSv4: Don't add a new lock on an interrupted
> > wait..")
> > Cc: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > index f73a8315933f..8e482f634d60 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > @@ -6501,34 +6501,34 @@ static void nfs4_lock_done(struct rpc_task
> > *task, void *calldata)
> > if (data->arg.new_lock && !data->cancelled) {
>
> Not specific to your patch, but I wonder if avoiding setting a lock
> record after we've successfully issued a LOCK is the right thing to
> do
> here.
>
> Suppose we issue a LOCK request and it's successful, but the wait for
> it
> is canceled before the reply comes in. The reply then comes in and
> data->cancelled is now true and now we don't set the lock.
>
> Eventually we end up calling locks_remove_posix but now there's not a
> lock on the local list so we skip sending a LOCKU. Is that a
> potential
> problem?
See below: nfs4_lock_release() will call nfs4_do_unlck() and undo the
lock in this case.
>
> > data->fl.fl_flags &= ~(FL_SLEEP | FL_ACCESS);
> > if (locks_lock_inode_wait(lsp->ls_state->inode,
> > &data->fl) < 0)
> > - break;
> > + goto out_restart;
> > }
> > -
> > if (data->arg.new_lock_owner != 0) {
> > nfs_confirm_seqid(&lsp->ls_seqid, 0);
> > nfs4_stateid_copy(&lsp->ls_stateid, &data-
> > >res.stateid);
> > set_bit(NFS_LOCK_INITIALIZED, &lsp->ls_flags);
> > - goto out_done;
> > - } else if (nfs4_update_lock_stateid(lsp, &data-
> > >res.stateid))
> > - goto out_done;
> > -
> > + } else if (!nfs4_update_lock_stateid(lsp, &data-
> > >res.stateid))
> > + goto out_restart;
> > break;
> > case -NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID:
> > case -NFS4ERR_OLD_STATEID:
> > case -NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID:
> > case -NFS4ERR_EXPIRED:
> > if (data->arg.new_lock_owner != 0) {
> > - if (nfs4_stateid_match(&data->arg.open_stateid,
> > + if (!nfs4_stateid_match(&data-
> > >arg.open_stateid,
> > &lsp->ls_state-
> > >open_stateid))
> > - goto out_done;
> > - } else if (nfs4_stateid_match(&data->arg.lock_stateid,
> > + goto out_restart;
> > + } else if (!nfs4_stateid_match(&data->arg.lock_stateid,
> > &lsp->ls_stateid))
> > - goto out_done;
> > + goto out_restart;
> > }
> > - if (!data->cancelled)
> > - rpc_restart_call_prepare(task);
> > out_done:
> > dprintk("%s: done, ret = %d!\n", __func__, data->rpc_status);
> > + return;
> > +out_restart:
> > + if (!data->cancelled)
> > + rpc_restart_call_prepare(task);
> > + goto out_done;
> > }
> >
> > static void nfs4_lock_release(void *calldata)
> > @@ -6537,7 +6537,7 @@ static void nfs4_lock_release(void *calldata)
> >
> > dprintk("%s: begin!\n", __func__);
> > nfs_free_seqid(data->arg.open_seqid);
> > - if (data->cancelled) {
> > + if (data->cancelled && data->rpc_status == 0) {
> > struct rpc_task *task;
> > task = nfs4_do_unlck(&data->fl, data->ctx, data->lsp,
> > data->arg.lock_seqid);
>
> Regardless of the question above, this should fix the most recent
> regression, so let's take it for now and we can look at that bit more
> closely later.
>
> Reviewed-by: 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
--
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
