On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 10:47 AM Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
We are talking about 4.0 and not 4.1. In 4.0 all operations that use
PUTFH can return ERR_BADHANDLE.
>
> _________________________________
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
