On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 05:37:16PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> Similar language in RFC 8881 section 18.22.4:
>
> >> If the server returns a "short read" (i.e., fewer data than requested
> >> and eof is set to FALSE), the client should send another READ to get
> >> the remaining data. A server may return less data than requested
> >> under several circumstances. The file may have been truncated by
> >> another client or perhaps on the server itself, changing the file
> >> size from what the requesting client believes to be the case. This
> >> would reduce the actual amount of data available to the client. It
> >> is possible that the server reduce the transfer size and so return a
> >> short read result. Server resource exhaustion may also occur in a
> >> short read.
>
> So the server could be returning INVAL and leaving EOF set
> to false. That might be triggering the client to retry the
> READ. Does the server need to set the EOF flag if the READ
> arguments cross the limit of the range that the server can
> return? Does the client need to check for this case and
> stop retrying? The specs aren't particularly clear on this
> matter.
But eof only in `resok` and not in `resfail`. For reference, here's the
reply I got:
Network File System, READ Reply Error: NFS3ERR_INVAL
[Program Version: 3]
[V3 Procedure: READ (6)]
Status: NFS3ERR_INVAL (22)
file_attributes Regular File mode: 0600 uid: 0 gid: 0
attributes_follow: value follows (1)
attributes Regular File mode: 0600 uid: 0 gid: 0
Type: Regular File (1)
Mode: 0600, S_IRUSR, S_IWUSR
nlink: 1
uid: 0
gid: 0
size: 9223372036854775807
used: 4096
rdev: 0,0
fsid: 0x0000000000000002 (2)
fileid: 69
atime: Jan 18, 2022 20:20:33.611267439 IST
seconds: 1642530033
nano seconds: 611267439
mtime: Jan 18, 2022 20:20:33.571266608 IST
seconds: 1642530033
nano seconds: 571266608
ctime: Jan 18, 2022 20:20:33.571266608 IST
seconds: 1642530033
nano seconds: 571266608
--
Dan Aloni
