On 12/6/21 11:55 AM, Chuck Lever III wrote:
+ +/* + * Function to check if the nfserr_share_denied error for 'fp' resulted + * from conflict with courtesy clients then release their state to resolve + * the conflict. + * + * Function returns: + * 0 - no conflict with courtesy clients + * >0 - conflict with courtesy clients resolved, try access/deny check again + * -1 - conflict with courtesy clients being resolved in background + * return nfserr_jukebox to NFS client + */ +static int +nfs4_destroy_clnts_with_sresv_conflict(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, + struct nfs4_file *fp, struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp, + u32 access, bool share_access) +{ + int cnt = 0; + int async_cnt = 0; + bool no_retry = false; + struct nfs4_client *cl; + struct list_head *pos, *next, reaplist; + struct nfsd_net *nn = net_generic(SVC_NET(rqstp), nfsd_net_id); + + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&reaplist); + spin_lock(&nn->client_lock); + list_for_each_safe(pos, next, &nn->client_lru) { + cl = list_entry(pos, struct nfs4_client, cl_lru); + /* + * check all nfs4_ol_stateid of this client + * for conflicts with 'access'mode. + */ + if (nfs4_check_deny_bmap(cl, fp, stp, access, share_access)) { + if (!test_bit(NFSD4_COURTESY_CLIENT, &cl->cl_flags)) { + /* conflict with non-courtesy client */ + no_retry = true; + cnt = 0; + goto out; + } + /* + * if too many to resolve synchronously + * then do the rest in background + */ + if (cnt > 100) { + set_bit(NFSD4_DESTROY_COURTESY_CLIENT, &cl->cl_flags); + async_cnt++; + continue; + } + if (mark_client_expired_locked(cl)) + continue; + cnt++; + list_add(&cl->cl_lru, &reaplist); + } + }Bruce suggested simply returning NFS4ERR_DELAY for all cases. That would simplify this quite a bit for what is a rare edge case.
If we always do this asynchronously by returning NFS4ERR_DELAY for all cases then the following pynfs tests need to be modified to handle the error: RENEW3 st_renew.testExpired : FAILURE LKU10 st_locku.testTimedoutUnlock : FAILURE CLOSE9 st_close.testTimedoutClose2 : FAILURE and any new tests that opens file have to be prepared to handle NFS4ERR_DELAY due to the lack of destroy_clientid in 4.0. Do we still want to take this approach? -Dai
