Thanks for testing it, Frank. FWIW, if the unmodified test still passes on ganesha then that's probably an indicator that it's not doing adequate vetting of the lock seqid with v4.0. Cheers, Jeff On Mon, 2023-03-13 at 11:51 -0700, Frank Filz wrote: > Looks good to me, tested against Ganesha and the updated patch passes. > > Frank > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff Layton [mailto:jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:24 AM > > To: calum.mackay@xxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ffilzlnx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > Frank Filz <ffilz@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: [pynfs PATCH v2 5/5] LOCK24: fix the lock_seqid in second lock > request > > > > This test currently fails against Linux nfsd, but I think it's the test > that's wrong. It > > basically does: > > > > open for read > > read lock > > unlock > > open upgrade > > write lock > > > > The write lock above is sent with a lock_seqid of 0, which is wrong. > > RFC7530/16.10.5 says: > > > > o In the case in which the state has been created and the [new > > lockowner] boolean is true, the server rejects the request with the > > error NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID. The only exception is where there is a > > retransmission of a previous request in which the boolean was > > true. In this case, the lock_seqid will match the original > > request, and the response will reflect the final case, below. > > > > Since the above is not a retransmission, knfsd is correct to reject this > call. This > > patch fixes the open_sequence object to track the lock seqid and set it > correctly > > in the LOCK request. > > > > With this, LOCK24 passes against knfsd. > > > > Cc: Frank Filz <ffilz@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Fixes: 4299316fb357 (Add LOCK24 test case to test open uprgade/downgrade > > scenario) > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py | 6 +++++- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py b/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py > index > > 468672403ffe..9d650ab017b9 100644 > > --- a/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py > > +++ b/nfs4.0/servertests/st_lock.py > > @@ -886,6 +886,7 @@ class open_sequence: > > self.client = client > > self.owner = owner > > self.lockowner = lockowner > > + self.lockseqid = 0 > > def open(self, access): > > self.fh, self.stateid = self.client.create_confirm(self.owner, > > access=access, > > @@ -900,14 +901,17 @@ class open_sequence: > > self.client.close_file(self.owner, self.fh, self.stateid) > > def lock(self, type): > > res = self.client.lock_file(self.owner, self.fh, self.stateid, > > - type=type, lockowner=self.lockowner) > > + type=type, lockowner=self.lockowner, > > + lockseqid=self.lockseqid) > > check(res) > > if res.status == NFS4_OK: > > self.lockstateid = res.lockid > > + self.lockseqid += 1 > > def unlock(self): > > res = self.client.unlock_file(1, self.fh, self.lockstateid) > > if res.status == NFS4_OK: > > self.lockstateid = res.lockid > > + self.lockseqid += 1 > > > > def testOpenUpgradeLock(t, env): > > """Try open, lock, open, downgrade, close > > -- > > 2.39.2 > -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
