> On Feb 2, 2023, at 4:22 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 19:41 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 2023, at 2:36 AM, Pumpkin <cc85nod@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> If the upgrading deny mode is invalid or conflicts with other client, we
>>> should try to resolve it, but the if-condition makes those error handling
>>> cannot be executed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pumpkin <cc85nod@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>>> index 4ef529379..ebdfaf0f9 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>>> @@ -5298,7 +5298,7 @@ nfs4_upgrade_open(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfs4_file *fp,
>>> /* test and set deny mode */
>>> spin_lock(&fp->fi_lock);
>>> status = nfs4_file_check_deny(fp, open->op_share_deny);
>>> - if (status == nfs_ok) {
>>> + if (status != nfs_ok) {
>>> if (status != nfserr_share_denied) {
>>
>> if status == nfs_ok then status will definitely not equal
>> share_denied. So this check is a bit nonsensical as it stands.
>>
>> Usually I prefer "switch (status)" in situations like this
>> because that avoids this kind of issue and I find it easier
>> to read quickly.
>>
>> Jeff, you are the original author of this function, and
>> Dai, your commit is the last one to touch this area. Can
>> you guys have a look? The one-liner looks correct, but I
>> might be missing something.
>>
>
> Yeah, that code is clearly broken and it looks like it was done in
> 3d69427151806 (NFSD: add support for share reservation conflict to
> courteous server).
>
> I don't believe that one-liner is correct though. If the result is
> nfs_ok, then we want to set the deny mode here and that won't happen.
>
> Something like this maybe? (completely untested):
>
> ---------------8<-------------------
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> index c39e43742dd6..af22dfdc6fcc 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> @@ -5282,16 +5282,17 @@ nfs4_upgrade_open(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfs4_file *fp,
> /* test and set deny mode */
> spin_lock(&fp->fi_lock);
> status = nfs4_file_check_deny(fp, open->op_share_deny);
> - if (status == nfs_ok) {
> - if (status != nfserr_share_denied) {
> - set_deny(open->op_share_deny, stp);
> - fp->fi_share_deny |=
> - (open->op_share_deny & NFS4_SHARE_DENY_BOTH);
> - } else {
> - if (nfs4_resolve_deny_conflicts_locked(fp, false,
> - stp, open->op_share_deny, false))
> - status = nfserr_jukebox;
> - }
> + switch (status) {
> + case nfs_ok:
> + set_deny(open->op_share_deny, stp);
> + fp->fi_share_deny |=
> + (open->op_share_deny & NFS4_SHARE_DENY_BOTH);
> + break;
> + case nfserr_share_denied:
> + if (nfs4_resolve_deny_conflicts_locked(fp, false,
> + stp, open->op_share_deny, false))
> + status = nfserr_jukebox;
> + break;
> }
> spin_unlock(&fp->fi_lock);
Would pynfs have a case or two that could test this?
Can you post an official version of this patch with Reported-by
and Fixes tags?
--
Chuck Lever
