Re: [PATCH 1/1] NFSv4.1: fix lone sequence transport assignment

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 5:20 PM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-04-21 at 15:47 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 5:20 PM Trond Myklebust <
> > trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2020-04-20 at 15:35 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 3:02 PM Trond Myklebust <
> > > > trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2020-04-20 at 10:59 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:53 AM Olga Kornievskaia <
> > > > > > olga.kornievskaia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > Yes we are consistent in requesting to same connection to
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > same channel binding, but we don't send
> > > > > > > BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION as
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > first thing on the "main" connection (ie connection that
> > > > > > > cared
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > CREATE_SESSION and was bound to fore and back channel by
> > > > > > > default).
> > > > > > > When that connection is reset, the first thing that happens
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > client re-sends the operation that was not replied to. That
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > SEQUENCE and by the rule the server binds that connection
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > fore channel only (and sets the callback being down). We
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > send
> > > > > > > BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION and request FORE_OR_BOTH where this
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > already been bound to FORE only.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about this: before we send BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION with
> > > > > > fore_or_both, we somehow always reset the connection (maybe
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > suggestion that already and i wasn't following).
> > > > >
> > > > > No. I didn't realise that we were being automatically set to
> > > > > just
> > > > > the
> > > > > fore channel. However as I said earlier, the spec says that the
> > > > > server
> > > > > MUST reply with NFS4ERR_INVAL in this case. It is not allowed
> > > > > to
> > > > > just
> > > > > return NFS4_OK and silently set the wrong channel binding.
> > > >
> > > > How's this:
> > > > client sends BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION with FORE_OR_BOTH, server
> > > > select
> > > > FORE channel. connection breaks before the reply gets to the
> > > > client.
> > > > Client resends. Is the server suppose to now fail with ERR_INVAL?
> > > >
> > > > There actually is such a thing between demand and request. FORE
> > > > and
> > > > BACK are demands and FORE_OR_BOTH and BACK_OR_BOTH are requests.
> > > > The
> > > > spec writes only about demands and not the requests. I believe
> > > > that's
> > > > intentional because BIND_CONN_TO_SESSIOn doesn't have a sequence
> > > > and
> > > > not protected by reply session semantics.
> > >
> > > OK. However if we take that interpretation, then the question is
> > > why
> > > would the server downgrade our FORE_OR_BOTH to FORE and what is the
> > > point of the client even retrying at all in that case?
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the client behaves improperly. It shouldn't
> > have
> > sent an operation on a new connection before sending
> > BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION.
> >
> > > The server can always reject the client's back channel creation
> > > attempt, but doing so has consequences: it means there is no way to
> > > hand out delegations or layouts. So I'm confused by the concept of
> > > a
> > > server that sets SEQ4_STATUS_CB_PATH_DOWN or
> > > SEQ4_STATUS_CB_PATH_DOWN_SESSION, but then doesn't allow the client
> > > to
> > > set a back channel.
> >
> > Because we can't guarantee that BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION happens as the
> > first operation, I think the solution is for the transport that will
> > do FORE_OR_BOTH request, the client must reset the connection first?
> > Would that be acceptable?
> >
>
> It sounds like we have no choice. However in that case, we should not
> try to recover in the case where the attempt to bind the backchannel
> fails.

I can't get the client to reset the connection. Is calling
xprt_force_disconnect() suppose to do that? If so, then that doesn't
happen. I have tried calling into xprt->ops->close(xprt) but that
leads to badness as well... Any suggestions of how to get connection
reset? Is xs_reset_transport() it? It's hard to figure out how all
these functions are different when their names imply connection
resetting...

Thank you


>
> --
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux