RE: [pynfs PATCH v2 5/5] LOCK24: fix the lock_seqid in second lock request

From: "Frank Filz" <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>
To: "'Calum Mackay'" <calum.mackay@oracle.com>,
	"'Jeff Layton'" <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: <bfields@fieldses.org>, <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"'Frank Filz'" <ffilz@redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [pynfs PATCH v2 5/5] LOCK24: fix the lock_seqid in second lock request
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 07:41:25 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <082c01d96edf$311da8d0$9358fa70$@mindspring.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c82e4b32-5df7-20c3-d0a8-4a30b9ae4482@oracle.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Calum Mackay [mailto:calum.mackay@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:35 AM
> To: Frank Filz <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>; 'Jeff Layton' <jlayton@kernel.org>
> Cc: Calum Mackay <calum.mackay@oracle.com>; bfields@fieldses.org; linux-
> nfs@vger.kernel.org; 'Frank Filz' <ffilz@redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [pynfs PATCH v2 5/5] LOCK24: fix the lock_seqid in second lock
> request
> 
> Now that I have some repo space (thank you Trond), I am putting things
> together…
> 
> On 13/03/2023 6:51 pm, Frank Filz wrote:
> > Looks good to me, tested against Ganesha and the updated patch passes.
> 
> Frank, may I add your Tested-by:, for 5/5 please?

Yes, definitely.

Frank

Tested-by: Frank Filz <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>
> 
> cheers,
> calum.
> 
> 
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jeff Layton [mailto:jlayton@kernel.org]
> >> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 4:24 AM
> >> To: calum.mackay@oracle.com
> >> Cc: bfields@fieldses.org; ffilzlnx@mindspring.com;
> > linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org;
> >> Frank Filz <ffilz@redhat.com>
> >> 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@redhat.com>
> >> Fixes: 4299316fb357 (Add LOCK24 test case to test open
> >> uprgade/downgrade
> >> scenario)
> >> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> >> ---
> >>   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
> >