> On Jan 9, 2023, at 10:33, Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:48 PM NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2023, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2023-01-06 at 09:56 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023, NeilBrown wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2023-01-04 at 12:01 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the server starts to reply NFS4ERR_STALE to GETATTR
>>>>>>>> requests,
>>>>>>>> why do
>>>>>>>> we care about stateid values? Just mark the inode as stale
>>>>>>>> and drop
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> on the floor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have a valid state from the server - we really shouldn't
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> ignore
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe it would be OK to mark the inode stale. I don't know if
>>>>>>> various
>>>>>>> retry loops abort properly when the inode is stale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, they are all supposed to do that. Otherwise we would end up
>>>>>> looping forever in close(), for instance, since the PUTFH,
>>>>>> GETATTR and
>>>>>> CLOSE can all return NFS4ERR_STALE as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> To mark the inode as STALE we still need to find the inode, and
>>>>> that is
>>>>> the key bit missing in the current code. Once we find the inode,
>>>>> we
>>>>> could mark it stale, but maybe some other error resulted in the
>>>>> missing
>>>>> GETATTR...
>>>>>
>>>>> It might make sense to put the new code in _nfs4_proc_open() after
>>>>> the
>>>>> explicit nfs4_proc_getattr() fails. We would need to find the
>>>>> inode
>>>>> given only the filehandle. Is there any easy way to do that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> NeilBrown
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't see a consistent pattern to follow for when to mark an
>>>> inode
>>>> as stale. Do this, on top of the previous patch, seem reasonable?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> NeilBrown
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>>> index b441b1d14a50..04497cb42154 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>>> @@ -489,6 +489,8 @@ static int nfs4_do_handle_exception(struct
>>>> nfs_server *server,
>>>> case -ESTALE:
>>>> if (inode != NULL && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
>>>> pnfs_destroy_layout(NFS_I(inode));
>>>> + if (inode)
>>>> + nfs_set_inode_stale(inode);
>>>
>>> This is normally dealt with in the generic code inside
>>> nfs_revalidate_inode(). There should be no need to duplicate it here.
>>>
>>>> break;
>>>> case -NFS4ERR_DELEG_REVOKED:
>>>> case -NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED:
>>>> @@ -2713,8 +2715,12 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_open(struct
>>>> nfs4_opendata *data,
>>>> return status;
>>>> }
>>>> if (!(o_res->f_attr->valid & NFS_ATTR_FATTR)) {
>>>> + struct inode *inode = nfs4_get_inode_by_stateid(
>>>> + &data->o_res.stateid,
>>>> + data->owner);
>>>
>>> There shouldn't be a need to go looking for open descriptors here,
>>> because they will hit ESTALE at some point later anyway.
>>
>> The problem is that they don't hit ESTALE later. Unless we update our
>> stored stateid with the result of the OPEN, we can use the old stateid,
>> and get the corresponding error.
>>
>> The only way to avoid the infinite loop is to either mark the inode as
>> stale, or update the state-id. For either of those we need to find the
>> inode. We don't have fileid so we cannot use iget. We do have file
>> handle and state-id.
>>
>> Maybe you are saying this is a server bug that the client cannot be
>> expect to cope with at all, and that an infinite loop is a valid client
>> response to this particular server behaviour. In that case, I guess no
>> patch is needed.
>
> I'm not arguing that the server should do something else. But I would
> like to talk about it from the spec perspective. When PUTFH+WRITE is
> sent to the server (with an incorrect stateid) and it's processing the
> WRITE compound (as the spec doesn't require the server to validate a
> filehandle on PUTFH. The spec says PUTFH is to "set" the correct
> filehandle), the server is dealing with 2 errors that it can possibly
> return to the client ERR_STALE and ERR_OLD_STATEID. There is nothing
> in the spec that speaks to the orders of errors to be returned. Of
> course I'd like to say that the server should prioritize ERR_STALE
> over ERR_OLD_STATEID (simply because it's a MUST in the spec and
> ERR_OLD_STATEIDs are written as "rules").
>
I disagree for the reason already pointed to in the spec. There is nothing in the spec that appears to allow the PUTFH to return anything other than NFS4ERR_STALE after the file has been deleted (and yes, RFC5661, Section 15.2 does list NFS4ERR_STALE as an error for PUTFH). PUTFH is definitely required to validate the file handle, since it is the ONLY operation that can return NFS4ERR_BADHANDLE.
_________________________________
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
