On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 16:40 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 2:47 PM Trond Myklebust < > trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Olga, > > > > On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 14:14 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > > > Hi folk, > > > > > > Looking for guidance on what folks think. A client is sending a > > > LINK > > > operation to the server. This compound after the LINK has > > > RESTOREFH > > > and GETATTR. Server returns SERVER_FAULT to on RESTOREFH. But > > > LINK is > > > done successfully. Client still fails the system call with EIO. > > > We > > > have a hardline and "ln" saying hardlink failed. > > > > > > Should the client not fail the system call in this case? The fact > > > that > > > we couldn't get up-to-date attributes don't seem like the reason > > > to > > > fail the system call? > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > I don't really see this as worth fixing on the client. It is very > > clearly a server bug. > > Why is that a server bug? A server can legitimately have an issue > trying to execute an operation (RESTOREFH) and legitimately returning > an error. If it is happening consistently on the server, then it is a bug, and it gets reported by the client in the same way we always report NFS4ERR_SERVERFAULT, by converting to an EREMOTEIO. > NFS client also ignores errors of the returning GETATTR after the > RESTOREFH. So I'm not sure why we are then not ignoring errors (or > some errors) of the RESTOREFH. We do need to check the value of RESTOREFH in order to figure out if we can continue reading the XDR buffer to decode the file attributes. We want to read those file attributes because we do expect the change attribute, the ctime and the nlinks values to all change as a result of the operation. Cheers Trond -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
