On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 03:17:20AM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 00:24 +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > > If our CLOSE RPC call is rejected with an ERR_STALE error, then we > > should remove the GETATTR call from the compound RPC and retry. > > This could happen in a scenario where two clients tries to access > > the same file. One client opens the file and the other client removes > > the file while it's opened by first client. When the first client > > attempts to close the file the server returns ESTALE and the file > > ends > > up being leaked on the server. This depends on how nfs server is > > configured and is not reproducible if running against nfsd. > > That would be a seriously broken server. If you return NFS4ERR_STALE to > the client, you cannot expect any further interaction with that file > from the client. It won't try to send CLOSE or DELEGRETURN or any other > stateful operation. > In this scenario, the setup we have at EFS is more of a distributed fashion. Multiple clients are connected to multiple servers with a common filesystem. So the above scenario leads to leaked open file handles on the client that tries to close deleted file. So I was of the view, in that case client could retry close without getattr in the close sequence without anything to do on server side. Thanks, Anchal Agarwal > -- > Trond Myklebust > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace > trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >
