On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 09:50:34PM +0100, Calum Mackay wrote:
> On 10/06/2021 2:01 am, suy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >The test fails on v5.13-rc5 and old kernels. Because the second session
> >doesn't send RECLAIM_COMPLETE before attempting to do a non-reclaim
> >open. So the server returns NFS4ERR_GRACE instead of NFS4_OK.
> >
> > # ./testserver.py ${server_IP}:/nfsroot --rundeps COUR2
> > INFO :rpc.poll:got connection from ('127.0.0.1', 39206), assigned to
> > fd=5
> > INFO :rpc.thread:Called connect(('193.168.140.239', 2049))
> > INFO :rpc.poll:Adding 6 generated by another thread
> > INFO :test.env:Created client to 193.168.140.239, 2049
> > INFO :test.env:Called do_readdir()
> > INFO :test.env:do_readdir() = [entry4(cookie=512,
> > name=b'COUR2_1623055313', attrs={})]
> > fileb'COUR2_1623119443'created by sess1
> > INFO :test.env:Sleeping for 22 seconds: twice the lease period
> > INFO :test.env:Woke up
> > session created
> > **************************************************
> > COUR2 st_courtesy.testLockSleepLock :
> > FAILURE
> > OP_OPEN should return NFS4_OK, instead got
> > NFS4ERR_GRACE
> > **************************************************
> > Command line asked for 1 of 255 tests
> > Of those: 0 Skipped, 1 Failed, 0 Warned, 0 Passed
> >
> >RFC5661, page 567:
> >"Whenever a client establishes a new client ID and before it does the
> >first non-reclaim operation that obtains a lock, it MUST send a
> >RECLAIM_COMPLETE with rca_one_fs set to FALSE, even if there are no
> >locks to reclaim. If non-reclaim locking operations are done before
> >the RECLAIM_COMPLETE, an NFS4ERR_GRACE error will be returned."
> >
> >Send RECLAIM_COMPLETE before the file open to let the test pass.
> >Signed-off-by: Su Yue <suy.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> > nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> >diff --git a/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py b/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
> >index dd911a37772d..3478a9d93dbf 100644
> >--- a/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
> >+++ b/nfs4.1/server41tests/st_courtesy.py
> >@@ -74,6 +74,9 @@ def testLockSleepLock(t, env):
> > c2 = env.c1.new_client(b"%s_2" % env.testname(t))
> > sess2 = c2.create_session()
> >+ res = sess2.compound([op.reclaim_complete(FALSE)])
> >+ check(res)
> >+
> > res = open_file(sess2, env.testname(t), access=OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE)
> > check(res)
> >
>
> I'd still like to check whether this is the right place to fix this.
>
> Initially, I was confused as to why the first client "c1" doesn't
> face the same issue. A network trace shows that a RECLAIM_COMPLETE
> is indeed sent for c1, despite not appearing explicitly in
> testLockSleepLock(). Whereas one isn't sent for c2, hence the
> problem.
>
> This is probably because c1 is initialised with:
>
> 61 sess1 = env.c1.new_client_session(env.testname(t))
>
>
> and c2 with:
>
> 74 c2 = env.c1.new_client(b"%s_2" % env.testname(t))
> 75 sess2 = c2.create_session()
>
>
> The c1 case results in a RECLAIM_COMPLETE, but the c2 case does not.
>
> I'm not yet sure whether that ought to be done in
> new_client()/create_session(). If so, then there would be no need to
> add it explicitly here.
There's definitely cases where clients want to be able to create a new
session without sending a new RECLAIM_COMPLETE.
Any reason we can't replace those two lines by a single
new_client_session()? I'd do either that or just add the explicit
RECLAIM_COMPLETE.
> [I suspect this was missed in my testing, since the Solaris server I
> used may be less strict about requiring the RECLAIM_COMPLETE]
That's a server bug:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5661#page-173
... NFS4ERR_GRACE must always be returned to clients attempting
a non-reclaim lock request before doing their own global
RECLAIM_COMPLETE.
I've complained about it before. I had some idea it'd been fixed, maybe
not.
--b.
