Re: [PATCH] nfsd: CB_RECALL can race with FREE_STATEID

["bfields@fieldses.org" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:03:09PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-04-18 at 16:50 -0400, Scott Mayhew wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 09:24:00AM -0400, Scott Mayhew wrote:
> > > > While trying to track down some issues involving large numbers of
> > > > delegations being recalled/revoked, I caught the server setting
> > > > SEQ4_STATUS_CB_PATH_DOWN while the client was actively responding
> > > > to
> > > > CB_RECALLs.  It turns out that the client had already done a
> > > > TEST_STATEID and FREE_STATEID for a delegation being recalled by
> > > > the
> > > > time it received the CB_RECALL.
> > > 
> > > That's interesting, thanks!
> > > 
> > > This exception seems awfully narrow, though.
> > > 
> > > If we get back any NFS-level error at all, then I think the
> > > callback
> > > channel is working (am I wrong?)
> > 
> > Correct, if the client replies with either NFS4ERR_DELAY or
> > NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID, the server will retry 1 time (see dl_retries).
> > After that, we fall thru and nfsd4_cb_recall_done() returns -1 which
> > causes the SEQ4_STATUS_CB_PATH_DOWN flag to be set.
> 
> There is no handling of NFS4ERR_DELAY in nfsd4_cb_recall_done().
> 
> As far as I can see, therefore, if the client returns NFS4ERR_DELAY
> (which it usually does if it is already in the process of returning the
> delegation) then the recall will fail immediately.

We should fix that, though it doesn't sound like it matters much in that
particular case.

The success or failure of a recall isn't actually all that interesting,
all that matters is whether we get the eventual DELEGRETURN.

--b.