On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 07:18:57AM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > On 20 May 2019, at 16:51, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > >On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:22:00AM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > >>Ok, I just noticed that we set fl_owner to the nlm_host in > >>nlm4svc_retrieve_args, so things are not as dire as I thought. What > >>would be nice is a sane set of tests for NLM.. > > > >What would we have needed to catch this? Sounds like it turns > >multi-client testing wouldn't have been required? (Not that that > >would > >be a bad idea.) > > Two NLM clients would be ideal to exercise the full range of > expected lock behavior. I suspect that's something I can do with > what's in pynfs today, but I haven't looked yet. I suppose if > there's a test for NLM I should make one for v4 too.. There isn't any pynfs NLM code. Some isilon folks did NLM/NSM/NFSv2/v3 pynfs tests: https://github.com/sthaber/pynfs I just never got a chance to incorporate them and try them. It's been a while, and I think there were one or two odd things about it, but maybe it'd be a good starting point. --b.
