From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50FCCC433FF for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:50:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DDDE206E0 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:50:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726804AbfG2Huy (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 03:50:54 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:11694 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726717AbfG2Huy (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 03:50:54 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,321,1559491200"; d="scan'208";a="72426416" Received: from unknown (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5]) by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2019 15:50:51 +0800 Received: from G08CNEXCHPEKD03.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.85]) by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9723E4CDE889; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 15:50:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.167.226.33] (10.167.226.33) by G08CNEXCHPEKD03.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 15:50:54 +0800 Subject: Re: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in 5.2.0-rc7 From: Su Yanjun To: "J. Bruce Fields" CC: , , References: <89d5612e-9af6-8f2e-15d8-ff6af29d508a@redhat.com> <016101d5359b$c71f06c0$555d1440$@mindspring.com> <4d6599c3-2280-e919-b60f-905f86452ac1@cn.fujitsu.com> <20190710000855.GE1536@fieldses.org> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 15:49:27 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.33] X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 9723E4CDE889.AC812 X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: suyj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Any ping? 在 2019/7/12 10:27, Su Yanjun 写道: > > 在 2019/7/10 8:08, J. Bruce Fields 写道: >> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 01:27:31PM +0800, Su Yanjun wrote: >>> Hi Bruce >>> >>> 在 2019/7/8 22:45, Frank Filz 写道: >>>> Yea, sorry, I totally missed this, but it does look like it's a >>>> Kernel nfsd >>> Any suggestions? >>>> issue. >> I don't know.  I'd probably want to check a packet trace first to make >> completely sure I understand what's happening on the wire.  It may be a >> couple weeks before I get to this. > > We capture the packets in attachment. > > Through packet capture analysis, there is a parameter *new lock owner* > related. > > When locking, if lock->lk_is_new is true (create new lock owner), it > will check lock owner's existence. > > Below is the execution path. > > nfsd4_lock: >  if(lock->lk_is_new) >    lstatus = lookup_or_create_lock_state(cstate, open_stp, lock, > &lock_stp, &new); > > lookup_or_create_lock_state: >  lo = find_lockowner_str(cl, &lock->lk_new_owner); >  if(!lo) { >  ... >  } else { >     status = nfserr_bad_seqid; >  } > > find_lockowner_str will check lock owner from  hash table. > > In this case unlock doesnot delete existed lock owner from hash table > so when lock again it > returns error. > > So my question is > 1. Does each lock always need new lock owner? > 2. In this case, unlock doesnot delete lock owner from hash table, is > it normal? > > Thanks > >> --b. >> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Daniel Gryniewicz [mailto:dang@redhat.com] >>>>> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 6:49 AM >>>>> To: Su Yanjun ; ffilzlnx@mindspring.com >>>>> Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Problem]testOpenUpgradeLock test failed in nfsv4.0 in >>>>> 5.2.0-rc7 >>>>> >>>>> Is this running knfsd or Ganesha as the server?  If it's Ganesha, the >>>>> question >>>>> would be better asked on the Ganesha Devel list >>>>> devel@lists.nfs-ganesha.org >>>>> >>>>> If it's knfsd, than Frank isn't the right person to ask. >>> We are using the knfsd. >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>> On 7/7/19 10:20 PM, Su Yanjun wrote: >>>>>> Ang ping? >>>>>> >>>>>> 在 2019/7/3 9:34, Su Yanjun 写道: >>>>>>> Hi Frank >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We tested the pynfs of NFSv4.0 on the latest version of the kernel >>>>>>> (5.2.0-rc7). >>>>>>> I encountered a problem while testing st_lock.testOpenUpgradeLock. >>>>>>> The problem is now as follows: >>>>>>> ************************************************** >>>>>>> LOCK24 st_lock.testOpenUpgradeLock : FAILURE >>>>>>>             OP_LOCK should return NFS4_OK, instead got >>>>>>>             NFS4ERR_BAD_SEQID >>>>>>> ************************************************** >>>>>>> Is this normal? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The case is as follows: >>>>>>> Def testOpenUpgradeLock(t, env): >>>>>>>      """Try open, lock, open, downgrade, close >>>>>>> >>>>>>>      FLAGS: all lock >>>>>>>      CODE: LOCK24 >>>>>>>      """ >>>>>>>      c= env.c1 >>>>>>>      C.init_connection() >>>>>>>      Os = open_sequence(c, t.code, lockowner="lockowner_LOCK24") >>>>>>>      Os.open(OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_READ) >>>>>>>      Os.lock(READ_LT) >>>>>>>      Os.open(OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE) >>>>>>>      Os.unlock() >>>>>>>      Os.downgrade(OPEN4_SHARE_ACCESS_WRITE) >>>>>>>      Os.lock(WRITE_LT) >>>>>>>      Os.close() >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After investigation, there was an error in unlock->lock. When >>>>>>> unlocking, the lockowner of the file was not released, causing an >>>>>>> error when locking again. >>>>>>> Will nfs4.0 support 1) open-> 2) lock-> 3) unlock-> 4) lock this >>>>>>> function? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>