> On Mar 9, 2022, at 10:12 PM, Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> On 3/9/22 2:42 PM, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 4, 2022, at 7:37 PM, Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Update find_in_sessionid_hashtbl to:
>>> . skip client with CLIENT_EXPIRED flag; discarded courtesy client.
>>> . if courtesy client was found then clear CLIENT_COURTESY and
>>> set CLIENT_RECONNECTED so callers can take appropriate action.
>>>
>>> Update nfsd4_sequence and nfsd4_bind_conn_to_session to create client
>>> record for client with CLIENT_RECONNECTED set.
>>>
>>> Update nfsd4_destroy_session to discard client with CLIENT_RECONNECTED
>>> set.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>>> index f42d72a8f5ca..34a59c6f446c 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>>> @@ -1963,13 +1963,22 @@ find_in_sessionid_hashtbl(struct nfs4_sessionid *sessionid, struct net *net,
>>> {
>>> struct nfsd4_session *session;
>>> __be32 status = nfserr_badsession;
>>> + struct nfs4_client *clp;
>>>
>>> session = __find_in_sessionid_hashtbl(sessionid, net);
>>> if (!session)
>>> goto out;
>>> + clp = session->se_client;
>>> + if (clp && nfs4_is_courtesy_client_expired(clp)) {
>>> + session = NULL;
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>> status = nfsd4_get_session_locked(session);
>>> - if (status)
>>> + if (status) {
>>> session = NULL;
>>> + if (clp && test_bit(NFSD4_CLIENT_COURTESY, &clp->cl_flags))
By the way, I don’t understand why this checks CLIENT_COURTESY to see if the clp should be discarded. Shouldn’t it check CLIENT_RECONNECTED like the other sites?
>>> + nfsd4_discard_courtesy_clnt(clp);
>>> + }
>> Here and above: I'm not seeing how @clp can be NULL, but I'm kind
>> of new to fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c.
>
> it seems like @clp can not be NULL since existing code does not
> check for it. I will remove it to avoid any confusion. Can this
> be done as a separate clean up patch?
I don’t think this series is going to make v5.18. We can keep working on improving each of the patches. And I would rather ensure that the series is properly bisectable. I don’t think we’re at a point where the patches are immutable.
> Thanks,
> -Dai
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chuck Lever
>>
>>
>>
