On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 21:29 +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > 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. If you send the client an NFS4ERR_STALE, you are telling it that its access to the file has been revoked. That is not a temporary error, it is a fatal one. The client is not responsible for cleaning up any state. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
