All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: bfields@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields)
To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Cc: "schumakeranna@gmail.com" <schumakeranna@gmail.com>,
	"bfields@redhat.com" <bfields@redhat.com>,
	"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	"daire@dneg.com" <daire@dneg.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nfs: don't allow reexport reclaims
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 15:34:09 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210614193409.GA16500@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3189d061c1e862fe305e501226fcc9ebc1fe544d.camel@hammerspace.com>

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 02:56:55PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-06-14 at 10:48 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
> > 
> > In the reexport case, nfsd is currently passing along locks with the
> > reclaim bit set.  The client sends a new lock request, which is
> > granted
> > if there's currently no conflict--even if it's possible a conflicting
> > lock could have been briefly held in the interim.
> > 
> > We don't currently have any way to safely grant reclaim, so for now
> > let's just deny them all.
> > 
> > I'm doing this by passing the reclaim bit to nfs and letting it fail
> > the
> > call, with the idea that eventually the client might be able to do
> > something more forgiving here.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/nfs/file.c       | 3 +++
> >  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 3 +++
> >  fs/nfsd/nfsproc.c   | 1 +
> >  include/linux/fs.h  | 1 +
> >  4 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c b/fs/nfs/file.c
> > index 1fef107961bc..35a29b440e3e 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/file.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/file.c
> > @@ -806,6 +806,9 @@ int nfs_lock(struct file *filp, int cmd, struct
> > file_lock *fl)
> >  
> >         nfs_inc_stats(inode, NFSIOS_VFSLOCK);
> >  
> > +       if (fl->fl_flags & FL_RECLAIM)
> > +               return -NFSERR_NO_GRACE;
> 
> NACK. nfs_lock() is required to return a POSIX error. I know that right
> now, nfsd is the only thing setting FL_RECLAIM, but we can't guarantee
> that will always be the case.

Setting FL_RECLAIM tells the filesystem that you're prepared to handle
NFSERR_NO_GRACE.  I'm not seeing the risk.

--b.

> >         /* No mandatory locks over NFS */
> >         if (__mandatory_lock(inode) && fl->fl_type != F_UNLCK)
> >                 goto out_err;
> > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > index 00d98bbab2a6..3ef42c0d5d38 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > @@ -6903,6 +6903,9 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct
> > nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> >         if (!locks_in_grace(net) && lock->lk_reclaim)
> >                 goto out;
> >  
> > +       if (lock->lk_reclaim)
> > +               fl_flags |= FL_RECLAIM;
> > +
> >         fp = lock_stp->st_stid.sc_file;
> >         switch (lock->lk_type) {
> >                 case NFS4_READW_LT:
> > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfsproc.c b/fs/nfsd/nfsproc.c
> > index 60d7c59e7935..80c430c37ab7 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfsproc.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfsproc.c
> > @@ -881,6 +881,7 @@ nfserrno (int errno)
> >                 { nfserr_serverfault, -ENFILE },
> >                 { nfserr_io, -EUCLEAN },
> >                 { nfserr_perm, -ENOKEY },
> > +               { nfserr_no_grace, -NFSERR_NO_GRACE},
> >         };
> >         int     i;
> >  
> > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> > index c3c88fdb9b2a..9be479999109 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > @@ -997,6 +997,7 @@ static inline struct file *get_file(struct file
> > *f)
> >  #define FL_UNLOCK_PENDING      512 /* Lease is being broken */
> >  #define FL_OFDLCK      1024    /* lock is "owned" by struct file */
> >  #define FL_LAYOUT      2048    /* outstanding pNFS layout */
> > +#define FL_RECLAIM     4096    /* reclaiming from a reboot server */
> >  
> >  #define FL_CLOSE_POSIX (FL_POSIX | FL_CLOSE)
> >  
> 
> -- 
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
> 
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-14 19:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-14 14:48 [PATCH 0/3] reexport lock fixes J. Bruce Fields
2021-06-14 14:48 ` [PATCH 1/3] nfs: don't atempt blocking locks on nfs reexports J. Bruce Fields
2021-06-14 14:48 ` [PATCH 2/3] lockd: lockd server-side shouldn't set fl_ops J. Bruce Fields
2021-06-14 14:48 ` [PATCH 3/3] nfs: don't allow reexport reclaims J. Bruce Fields
2021-06-14 14:56   ` Trond Myklebust
2021-06-14 19:34     ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2021-06-14 19:53       ` Trond Myklebust
2021-06-14 20:03         ` bfields
2021-06-14 21:03           ` Trond Myklebust
2021-07-22 14:34             ` bfields

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210614193409.GA16500@fieldses.org \
    --to=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=bfields@redhat.com \
    --cc=daire@dneg.com \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=schumakeranna@gmail.com \
    --cc=trondmy@hammerspace.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 3/3] nfs: don'\''t allow reexport reclaims' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.