On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 5:09 AM Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 17 May 2019, at 17:45, Xuewei Zhang wrote:
> > Seems this patch introduced a bug in how lock protocol handles
> > GRANTED_MSG in nfs.
>
> Yes, you're right: it's broken, and broken badly because we find conflicting
> locks based on lockd's fl_pid and lockd's fl_owner, which is current->files.
> That means that clients are not differentiated, and that means that v3 locks
> are broken.
Thanks a lot for the quick response and confirming the problem!
>
> I'd really like to see the fl_pid value make sense on the server when we
> show it to userspace, so I think that we should stuff the svid in fl_owner.
>
> Clearly I need to be more careful making changes here, so I am going to take
> my time fixing this, and I won't get to it until Monday. A revert would get
> us back to safe behavior.
>From my limited understanding, b8eee0e90f97 ("lockd: Show pid of lockd
for remote locks")
exists only for fixing lockd in 9d5b86ac13c5 ("fs/locks: Remove
fl_nspid and use fs-specific...").
But I don't see anything wrong in 9d5b86ac13c5 ("fs/locks: Remove
fl_nspid and use fs-specific..."). Could you let me know what's the
problem? Thanks a lot!
If 9d5b86ac13c5 ("fs/locks: Remove fl_nspid and use fs-specific...")
is correct, we
probably don't need to add another fixing patch. Perhaps reverting b8eee0e90f97
("lockd: Show pid of lockd for remote locks") would be the best way then.
>
> Ben
Best regards,
Xuewei
