[PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Stefan Metzmacher]

Hi,

here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
by a Windows 11 client.

The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.

Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
in 6.16 final.

Thanks!
metze

v3: move __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT() defines before including
    smbdirect headers in order to avoid problems with the follow
    up changes for 6.19

v2: adjust for the case where the recv completion arrives before
    RDMA_CM_EVENT_ESTABLISHED and improve commit messages

Stefan Metzmacher (4):
  smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper
  smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()
  smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks in
    recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()
  smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks in
    recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()

 fs/smb/client/smbdirect.c                  | 28 ++++++------
 fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c             | 40 +++++++++++++----
 3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH v3 1/4] smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper

[Stefan Metzmacher]

This can be used like this:

  int err = somefunc();
  pr_warn("err=%1pe\n", SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR(err));

This will be used in the following fixes in order
to be prepared to identify real world problems
more easily.

Cc: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>
Cc: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.org>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: samba-technical@lists.samba.org
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
---
 fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h | 13 +++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h b/fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h
index ee5a90d691c8..611986827a5e 100644
--- a/fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h
+++ b/fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h
@@ -74,6 +74,19 @@ const char *smbdirect_socket_status_string(enum smbdirect_socket_status status)
 	return "<unknown>";
 }
 
+/*
+ * This can be used with %1pe to print errors as strings or '0'
+ * And it avoids warnings like: warn: passing zero to 'ERR_PTR'
+ * from smatch -p=kernel --pedantic
+ */
+static __always_inline
+const void * __must_check SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR(long error)
+{
+	if (error == 0)
+		return NULL;
+	return ERR_PTR(error);
+}
+
 enum smbdirect_keepalive_status {
 	SMBDIRECT_KEEPALIVE_NONE,
 	SMBDIRECT_KEEPALIVE_PENDING,
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH v3 2/4] smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()

[Stefan Metzmacher]

These will be used in various places in order to assert
the current status mostly during the connect and negotiation
phase. It will replace the WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...)
calls, which are very useless in order to identify the
problem that happened.

As a start client and server will need to define their own
__SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT(__sc) macro in order to use
SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_DISCONNECT().

Cc: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>
Cc: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.org>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: samba-technical@lists.samba.org
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
---
 fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h b/fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h
index 611986827a5e..384b19177e1c 100644
--- a/fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h
+++ b/fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h
@@ -394,6 +394,44 @@ static __always_inline void smbdirect_socket_init(struct smbdirect_socket *sc)
 	init_waitqueue_head(&sc->mr_io.cleanup.wait_queue);
 }
 
+#define __SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_FAILED(__sc, __expected_status, __error_cmd, __unexpected_cmd) ({ \
+	bool __failed = false; \
+	if (unlikely((__sc)->first_error)) { \
+		__failed = true; \
+		__error_cmd \
+	} else if (unlikely((__sc)->status != (__expected_status))) { \
+		__failed = true; \
+		__unexpected_cmd \
+	} \
+	__failed; \
+})
+
+#define __SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_WARN(__sc, __expected_status, __unexpected_cmd) \
+	__SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_FAILED(__sc, __expected_status, \
+	, \
+	{ \
+		const struct sockaddr_storage *__src = NULL; \
+		const struct sockaddr_storage *__dst = NULL; \
+		if ((__sc)->rdma.cm_id) { \
+			__src = &(__sc)->rdma.cm_id->route.addr.src_addr; \
+			__dst = &(__sc)->rdma.cm_id->route.addr.dst_addr; \
+		} \
+		WARN_ONCE(1, \
+			"expected[%s] != %s first_error=%1pe local=%pISpsfc remote=%pISpsfc\n", \
+			smbdirect_socket_status_string(__expected_status), \
+			smbdirect_socket_status_string((__sc)->status), \
+			SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR((__sc)->first_error), \
+			__src, __dst); \
+		__unexpected_cmd \
+	})
+
+#define SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_WARN(__sc, __expected_status) \
+	__SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_WARN(__sc, __expected_status, /* nothing */)
+
+#define SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_DISCONNECT(__sc, __expected_status) \
+	__SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_WARN(__sc, __expected_status, \
+		__SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT(__sc);)
+
 struct smbdirect_send_io {
 	struct smbdirect_socket *socket;
 	struct ib_cqe cqe;
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH v3 3/4] smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks in recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()

[Stefan Metzmacher]

Namjae reported the following:

I have a simple file copy test with windows 11 client, and get the
following error message.

[  894.140312] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[  894.140316] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 116 at
fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c:642 recv_done+0x308/0x360 [ksmbd]
[  894.140335] Modules linked in: ksmbd cmac nls_utf8 nls_ucs2_utils
libarc4 nls_iso8859_1 snd_hda_codec_intelhdmi snd_hda_codec_hdmi
snd_hda_codec_alc882 snd_hda_codec_realtek_lib snd_hda_codec_generic
rpcrdma intel_rapl_msr rdma_ucm intel_rapl_common snd_hda_intel
ib_iser snd_hda_codec intel_uncore_frequency
intel_uncore_frequency_common snd_hda_core intel_tcc_cooling
x86_pkg_temp_thermal intel_powerclamp snd_intel_dspcfg libiscsi
snd_intel_sdw_acpi coretemp scsi_transport_iscsi snd_hwdep kvm_intel
i915 snd_pcm ib_umad rdma_cm snd_seq_midi ib_ipoib kvm
snd_seq_midi_event iw_cm snd_rawmidi ghash_clmulni_intel ib_cm
aesni_intel snd_seq mei_hdcp drm_buddy rapl snd_seq_device eeepc_wmi
asus_wmi snd_timer intel_cstate ttm snd drm_client_lib
drm_display_helper sparse_keymap soundcore platform_profile mxm_wmi
wmi_bmof joydev mei_me cec acpi_pad mei rc_core drm_kms_helper
input_leds i2c_algo_bit mac_hid sch_fq_codel msr parport_pc ppdev lp
nfsd parport auth_rpcgss binfmt_misc nfs_acl lockd grace drm sunrpc
ramoops efi_pstore
[  894.140414]  reed_solomon pstore_blk pstore_zone autofs4 btrfs
blake2b_generic xor raid6_pq mlx5_ib ib_uverbs ib_core hid_generic uas
usbhid hid r8169 i2c_i801 usb_storage i2c_mux i2c_smbus mlx5_core
realtek ahci mlxfw psample libahci video wmi [last unloaded: ksmbd]
[  894.140442] CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 116 Comm: kworker/1:1H Tainted: G
    W           6.18.0-rc5+ #1 PREEMPT(voluntary)
[  894.140447] Tainted: [W]=WARN
[  894.140448] Hardware name: System manufacturer System Product
Name/H110M-K, BIOS 3601 12/12/2017
[  894.140450] Workqueue: ib-comp-wq ib_cq_poll_work [ib_core]
[  894.140476] RIP: 0010:recv_done+0x308/0x360 [ksmbd]
[  894.140487] Code: 2e f2 ff ff 5b 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f 5d c3 cc
cc cc cc 41 8b 55 10 49 8b 75 08 b9 02 00 00 00 e8 ed f4 f2 c3 e9 59
fd ff ff <0f> 0b e9 02 ff ff ff 49 8b 74 24 28 49 8d 94 24 c8 00 00 00
bf 00
[  894.140490] RSP: 0018:ffffa47ec03f3d78 EFLAGS: 00010293
[  894.140492] RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: ffff8eb84c818000 RCX: 000000010002ba00
[  894.140494] RDX: 0000000037600001 RSI: 0000000000000083 RDI: ffff8eb92ec9ee40
[  894.140496] RBP: ffffa47ec03f3da0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000010
[  894.140498] R10: ffff8eb801705680 R11: fefefefefefefeff R12: ffff8eb7454b8810
[  894.140499] R13: ffff8eb746deb988 R14: ffff8eb746deb980 R15: ffff8eb84c818000
[  894.140501] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8eb9a7355000(0000)
knlGS:0000000000000000
[  894.140503] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[  894.140505] CR2: 00002d9401d60018 CR3: 0000000010a40006 CR4: 00000000003726f0
[  894.140507] Call Trace:
[  894.140509]  <TASK>
[  894.140512]  __ib_process_cq+0x8e/0x190 [ib_core]
[  894.140530]  ib_cq_poll_work+0x2f/0x90 [ib_core]
[  894.140545]  process_scheduled_works+0xd4/0x430
[  894.140554]  worker_thread+0x12a/0x270
[  894.140558]  kthread+0x10d/0x250
[  894.140564]  ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
[  894.140567]  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[  894.140571]  ret_from_fork+0x11a/0x160
[  894.140574]  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[  894.140577]  ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
[  894.140584]  </TASK>
[  894.140585] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
[  894.154363] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[  894.154367] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 5543 at
fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c:1728 smb_direct_cm_handler+0x121/0x130
[ksmbd]
[  894.154384] Modules linked in: ksmbd cmac nls_utf8 nls_ucs2_utils
libarc4 nls_iso8859_1 snd_hda_codec_intelhdmi snd_hda_codec_hdmi
snd_hda_codec_alc882 snd_hda_codec_realtek_lib snd_hda_codec_generic
rpcrdma intel_rapl_msr rdma_ucm intel_rapl_common snd_hda_intel
ib_iser snd_hda_codec intel_uncore_frequency
intel_uncore_frequency_common snd_hda_core intel_tcc_cooling
x86_pkg_temp_thermal intel_powerclamp snd_intel_dspcfg libiscsi
snd_intel_sdw_acpi coretemp scsi_transport_iscsi snd_hwdep kvm_intel
i915 snd_pcm ib_umad rdma_cm snd_seq_midi ib_ipoib kvm
snd_seq_midi_event iw_cm snd_rawmidi ghash_clmulni_intel ib_cm
aesni_intel snd_seq mei_hdcp drm_buddy rapl snd_seq_device eeepc_wmi
asus_wmi snd_timer intel_cstate ttm snd drm_client_lib
drm_display_helper sparse_keymap soundcore platform_profile mxm_wmi
wmi_bmof joydev mei_me cec acpi_pad mei rc_core drm_kms_helper
input_leds i2c_algo_bit mac_hid sch_fq_codel msr parport_pc ppdev lp
nfsd parport auth_rpcgss binfmt_misc nfs_acl lockd grace drm sunrpc
ramoops efi_pstore
[  894.154456]  reed_solomon pstore_blk pstore_zone autofs4 btrfs
blake2b_generic xor raid6_pq mlx5_ib ib_uverbs ib_core hid_generic uas
usbhid hid r8169 i2c_i801 usb_storage i2c_mux i2c_smbus mlx5_core
realtek ahci mlxfw psample libahci video wmi [last unloaded: ksmbd]
[  894.154483] CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 5543 Comm: kworker/3:6 Tainted: G
    W           6.18.0-rc5+ #1 PREEMPT(voluntary)
[  894.154487] Tainted: [W]=WARN
[  894.154488] Hardware name: System manufacturer System Product
Name/H110M-K, BIOS 3601 12/12/2017
[  894.154490] Workqueue: ib_cm cm_work_handler [ib_cm]
[  894.154499] RIP: 0010:smb_direct_cm_handler+0x121/0x130 [ksmbd]
[  894.154507] Code: e7 e8 13 b1 ef ff 44 89 e1 4c 89 ee 48 c7 c7 80
d7 59 c1 48 89 c2 e8 2e 4d ef c3 31 c0 5b 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 5d c3 cc
cc cc cc <0f> 0b eb a5 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 90 90 90 90 90
90 90
[  894.154510] RSP: 0018:ffffa47ec1b27c00 EFLAGS: 00010206
[  894.154512] RAX: ffffffffc1304e00 RBX: ffff8eb89ae50880 RCX: 0000000000000000
[  894.154514] RDX: ffff8eb730960000 RSI: ffffa47ec1b27c60 RDI: ffff8eb7454b9400
[  894.154515] RBP: ffffa47ec1b27c20 R08: 0000000000000002 R09: ffff8eb730b8c18b
[  894.154517] R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: 0000000000000009
[  894.154518] R13: ffff8eb7454b9400 R14: ffff8eb7454b8810 R15: ffff8eb815c43000
[  894.154520] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8eb9a7455000(0000)
knlGS:0000000000000000
[  894.154522] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[  894.154523] CR2: 00007fe1310e99d0 CR3: 0000000010a40005 CR4: 00000000003726f0
[  894.154525] Call Trace:
[  894.154527]  <TASK>
[  894.154530]  cma_cm_event_handler+0x27/0xd0 [rdma_cm]
[  894.154541]  cma_ib_handler+0x99/0x2e0 [rdma_cm]
[  894.154551]  cm_process_work+0x28/0xf0 [ib_cm]
[  894.154557]  cm_queue_work_unlock+0x41/0xf0 [ib_cm]
[  894.154563]  cm_work_handler+0x2eb/0x25b0 [ib_cm]
[  894.154568]  ? pwq_activate_first_inactive+0x52/0x70
[  894.154572]  ? pwq_dec_nr_in_flight+0x244/0x330
[  894.154575]  process_scheduled_works+0xd4/0x430
[  894.154579]  worker_thread+0x12a/0x270
[  894.154581]  kthread+0x10d/0x250
[  894.154585]  ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
[  894.154587]  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[  894.154590]  ret_from_fork+0x11a/0x160
[  894.154593]  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[  894.154596]  ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
[  894.154602]  </TASK>
[  894.154603] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
[  894.154931] ksmbd: smb_direct: disconnected
[  894.157278] ksmbd: smb_direct: disconnected

I guess sc->first_error is already set and sc->status
is thus unexpected, so this should avoid the WARN[_ON]_ONCE()
if sc->first_error is already set and have a usable error path.

While there set sc->first_error as soon as possible.

v1 of this patch revealed the real problem with this message:

[  309.560973] expected[NEGOTIATE_NEEDED] != RDMA_CONNECT_RUNNING
first_error=0 local=192.168.0.200:445 remote=192.168.0.100:60445
[  309.561034] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 78 at transport_rdma.c:643
recv_done+0x2fa/0x3d0 [ksmbd]

Some drivers (at least mlx5_ib) might post a recv completion before
RDMA_CM_EVENT_ESTABLISHED, so we need to adjust our expectation in that
case.

Fixes: e2d5e516c663 ("smb: server: only turn into SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_CONNECTED when negotiation is done")
Cc: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>
Cc: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.org>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: samba-technical@lists.samba.org
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
---
 fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c b/fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c
index e2be9a496154..4e7ab8d9314f 100644
--- a/fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c
+++ b/fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c
@@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
 #include <rdma/rdma_cm.h>
 #include <rdma/rw.h>
 
+#define __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT(__sc) smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_connection(__sc)
+
 #include "glob.h"
 #include "connection.h"
 #include "smb_common.h"
@@ -231,6 +233,9 @@ static void smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
 	struct smbdirect_socket *sc =
 		container_of(work, struct smbdirect_socket, disconnect_work);
 
+	if (sc->first_error == 0)
+		sc->first_error = -ECONNABORTED;
+
 	/*
 	 * make sure this and other work is not queued again
 	 * but here we don't block and avoid
@@ -241,9 +246,6 @@ static void smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
 	disable_delayed_work(&sc->idle.timer_work);
 	disable_work(&sc->idle.immediate_work);
 
-	if (sc->first_error == 0)
-		sc->first_error = -ECONNABORTED;
-
 	switch (sc->status) {
 	case SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_NEEDED:
 	case SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_RUNNING:
@@ -287,6 +289,9 @@ static void smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
 static void
 smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_connection(struct smbdirect_socket *sc)
 {
+	if (sc->first_error == 0)
+		sc->first_error = -ECONNABORTED;
+
 	/*
 	 * make sure other work (than disconnect_work) is
 	 * not queued again but here we don't block and avoid
@@ -296,9 +301,6 @@ smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_connection(struct smbdirect_socket *sc)
 	disable_work(&sc->idle.immediate_work);
 	disable_delayed_work(&sc->idle.timer_work);
 
-	if (sc->first_error == 0)
-		sc->first_error = -ECONNABORTED;
-
 	switch (sc->status) {
 	case SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ADDR_FAILED:
 	case SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ROUTE_FAILED:
@@ -639,7 +641,18 @@ static void recv_done(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_wc *wc)
 			return;
 		}
 		sc->recv_io.reassembly.full_packet_received = true;
-		WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_NEEDED);
+		/*
+		 * Some drivers (at least mlx5_ib) might post a
+		 * recv completion before RDMA_CM_EVENT_ESTABLISHED,
+		 * we need to adjust our expectation in that case.
+		 */
+		if (!sc->first_error && sc->status == SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RDMA_CONNECT_RUNNING)
+			sc->status = SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_NEEDED;
+		if (SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_WARN(sc, SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_NEEDED)) {
+			put_recvmsg(sc, recvmsg);
+			smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_connection(sc);
+			return;
+		}
 		sc->status = SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_RUNNING;
 		enqueue_reassembly(sc, recvmsg, 0);
 		wake_up(&sc->status_wait);
@@ -1725,7 +1738,18 @@ static int smb_direct_cm_handler(struct rdma_cm_id *cm_id,
 
 	switch (event->event) {
 	case RDMA_CM_EVENT_ESTABLISHED: {
-		WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RDMA_CONNECT_RUNNING);
+		/*
+		 * Some drivers (at least mlx5_ib) might post a
+		 * recv completion before RDMA_CM_EVENT_ESTABLISHED,
+		 * we need to adjust our expectation in that case.
+		 *
+		 * As we already started the negotiation, we just
+		 * ignore RDMA_CM_EVENT_ESTABLISHED here.
+		 */
+		if (!sc->first_error && sc->status > SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RDMA_CONNECT_RUNNING)
+			break;
+		if (SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_DISCONNECT(sc, SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RDMA_CONNECT_RUNNING))
+			break;
 		sc->status = SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_NEEDED;
 		wake_up(&sc->status_wait);
 		break;
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH v3 4/4] smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks in recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()

[Stefan Metzmacher]

sc->first_error might already be set and sc->status
is thus unexpected, so this should avoid the WARN[_ON]_ONCE()
if sc->first_error is already set and have a usable error path.

While there set sc->first_error as soon as possible.

This is done based on a problem seen in similar places on
the server. And there it was already very useful in order
to find the problem when we have a meaningful WARN_ONCE()
that prints details about the connection.

This is much more useful:

[  309.560973] expected[NEGOTIATE_NEEDED] != RDMA_CONNECT_RUNNING
first_error=0 local=192.168.0.200:445 remote=192.168.0.100:60445
[  309.561034] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 78 at transport_rdma.c:643
recv_done+0x2fa/0x3d0 [ksmbd]

than what we had before (only):

[  894.140316] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 116 at
fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c:642 recv_done+0x308/0x360 [ksmbd]

Fixes: 58dfba8a2d4e ("smb: client/smbdirect: replace SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_CONNECTING with more detailed states")
Cc: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>
Cc: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.org>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: samba-technical@lists.samba.org
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
---
 fs/smb/client/smbdirect.c | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/smb/client/smbdirect.c b/fs/smb/client/smbdirect.c
index c6c428c2e08d..788a0670c4a8 100644
--- a/fs/smb/client/smbdirect.c
+++ b/fs/smb/client/smbdirect.c
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/highmem.h>
 #include <linux/folio_queue.h>
+#define __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT(__sc) smbd_disconnect_rdma_connection(__sc)
 #include "../common/smbdirect/smbdirect_pdu.h"
 #include "smbdirect.h"
 #include "cifs_debug.h"
@@ -186,6 +187,9 @@ static void smbd_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
 	struct smbdirect_socket *sc =
 		container_of(work, struct smbdirect_socket, disconnect_work);
 
+	if (sc->first_error == 0)
+		sc->first_error = -ECONNABORTED;
+
 	/*
 	 * make sure this and other work is not queued again
 	 * but here we don't block and avoid
@@ -197,9 +201,6 @@ static void smbd_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
 	disable_work(&sc->idle.immediate_work);
 	disable_delayed_work(&sc->idle.timer_work);
 
-	if (sc->first_error == 0)
-		sc->first_error = -ECONNABORTED;
-
 	switch (sc->status) {
 	case SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_NEEDED:
 	case SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_RUNNING:
@@ -242,6 +243,9 @@ static void smbd_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
 
 static void smbd_disconnect_rdma_connection(struct smbdirect_socket *sc)
 {
+	if (sc->first_error == 0)
+		sc->first_error = -ECONNABORTED;
+
 	/*
 	 * make sure other work (than disconnect_work) is
 	 * not queued again but here we don't block and avoid
@@ -252,9 +256,6 @@ static void smbd_disconnect_rdma_connection(struct smbdirect_socket *sc)
 	disable_work(&sc->idle.immediate_work);
 	disable_delayed_work(&sc->idle.timer_work);
 
-	if (sc->first_error == 0)
-		sc->first_error = -ECONNABORTED;
-
 	switch (sc->status) {
 	case SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ADDR_FAILED:
 	case SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ROUTE_FAILED:
@@ -322,27 +323,27 @@ static int smbd_conn_upcall(
 
 	switch (event->event) {
 	case RDMA_CM_EVENT_ADDR_RESOLVED:
-		WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ADDR_RUNNING);
+		if (SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_DISCONNECT(sc, SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ADDR_RUNNING))
+			break;
 		sc->status = SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ROUTE_NEEDED;
 		wake_up(&sc->status_wait);
 		break;
 
 	case RDMA_CM_EVENT_ROUTE_RESOLVED:
-		WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ROUTE_RUNNING);
+		if (SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_DISCONNECT(sc, SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ROUTE_RUNNING))
+			break;
 		sc->status = SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RDMA_CONNECT_NEEDED;
 		wake_up(&sc->status_wait);
 		break;
 
 	case RDMA_CM_EVENT_ADDR_ERROR:
 		log_rdma_event(ERR, "connecting failed event=%s\n", event_name);
-		WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ADDR_RUNNING);
 		sc->status = SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ADDR_FAILED;
 		smbd_disconnect_rdma_work(&sc->disconnect_work);
 		break;
 
 	case RDMA_CM_EVENT_ROUTE_ERROR:
 		log_rdma_event(ERR, "connecting failed event=%s\n", event_name);
-		WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ROUTE_RUNNING);
 		sc->status = SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RESOLVE_ROUTE_FAILED;
 		smbd_disconnect_rdma_work(&sc->disconnect_work);
 		break;
@@ -428,7 +429,8 @@ static int smbd_conn_upcall(
 					min_t(u8, sp->responder_resources,
 					      peer_responder_resources);
 
-		WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RDMA_CONNECT_RUNNING);
+		if (SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_DISCONNECT(sc, SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RDMA_CONNECT_RUNNING))
+			break;
 		sc->status = SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_NEEDED;
 		wake_up(&sc->status_wait);
 		break;
@@ -437,7 +439,6 @@ static int smbd_conn_upcall(
 	case RDMA_CM_EVENT_UNREACHABLE:
 	case RDMA_CM_EVENT_REJECTED:
 		log_rdma_event(ERR, "connecting failed event=%s\n", event_name);
-		WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RDMA_CONNECT_RUNNING);
 		sc->status = SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_RDMA_CONNECT_FAILED;
 		smbd_disconnect_rdma_work(&sc->disconnect_work);
 		break;
@@ -699,7 +700,8 @@ static void recv_done(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_wc *wc)
 		negotiate_done =
 			process_negotiation_response(response, wc->byte_len);
 		put_receive_buffer(sc, response);
-		WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_RUNNING);
+		if (SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_WARN(sc, SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_RUNNING))
+			negotiate_done = false;
 		if (!negotiate_done) {
 			sc->status = SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_NEGOTIATE_FAILED;
 			smbd_disconnect_rdma_connection(sc);
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Namjae Jeon]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
> by a Windows 11 client.
>
> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
>
> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
> in 6.16 final.
First, the warning message has been improved. Thanks.
However, when copying a 6-7GB file on a Windows client, the following
error occurs. These error messages did not occur when testing with the
older ksmbd rdma(https://github.com/namjaejeon/ksmbd).

[  424.088714] ksmbd: smb_direct: disconnected
[  424.088729] ksmbd: sock_read failed: -107
[  424.088881] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.088908] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.088922] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.088980] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.089044] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.089058] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.089062] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.089068] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.089078] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.089085] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.089104] ksmbd: smb_direct: Send error. status='WR flushed (5)', opcode=0
[  424.089111] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.089140] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.089160] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.090146] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.090160] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.090180] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.090188] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.090200] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.090228] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.090245] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.090261] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.090274] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.090317] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  424.090323] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.648368] ksmbd: smb_direct: disconnected
[  432.648383] ksmbd: sock_read failed: -107
[  432.648800] ksmbd: smb_direct: Send error. status='WR flushed (5)', opcode=0
[  432.649835] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.649870] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.649883] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.649894] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.649913] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.649966] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650023] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650077] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650138] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650151] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650173] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650182] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650196] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650205] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650219] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650229] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650238] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650256] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  432.650270] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  450.254342] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  450.254644] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  450.254672] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  450.254688] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  450.254825] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
[  450.254859] ksmbd: smb_direct: disconnected
[  450.254866] ksmbd: sock_read failed: -107
[  450.255282] ksmbd: smb_direct: Send error. status='WR flushed (5)', opcode=0
[  450.255342] ksmbd: smb_direct: Send error. status='WR flushed (5)', opcode=0

>
> Thanks!
> metze
>
> v3: move __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT() defines before including
>     smbdirect headers in order to avoid problems with the follow
>     up changes for 6.19
>
> v2: adjust for the case where the recv completion arrives before
>     RDMA_CM_EVENT_ESTABLISHED and improve commit messages
>
> Stefan Metzmacher (4):
>   smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper
>   smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()
>   smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks in
>     recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()
>   smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks in
>     recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()
>
>  fs/smb/client/smbdirect.c                  | 28 ++++++------
>  fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c             | 40 +++++++++++++----
>  3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Namjae Jeon]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 8:50 AM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
> > where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
> > by a Windows 11 client.
> >
> > The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
> > they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
> > problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
> >
> > Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
> > message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
> > client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
> > exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
> > in 6.16 final.
Anyway, Applied this patch-set to #ksmbd-for-next-next.
Please check the below issue.
> First, the warning message has been improved. Thanks.
> However, when copying a 6-7GB file on a Windows client, the following
> error occurs. These error messages did not occur when testing with the
> older ksmbd rdma(https://github.com/namjaejeon/ksmbd).
>
> [  424.088714] ksmbd: smb_direct: disconnected
> [  424.088729] ksmbd: sock_read failed: -107
> [  424.088881] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.088908] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.088922] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.088980] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.089044] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.089058] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.089062] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.089068] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.089078] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.089085] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.089104] ksmbd: smb_direct: Send error. status='WR flushed (5)', opcode=0
> [  424.089111] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.089140] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.089160] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.090146] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.090160] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.090180] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.090188] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.090200] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.090228] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.090245] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.090261] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.090274] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.090317] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  424.090323] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.648368] ksmbd: smb_direct: disconnected
> [  432.648383] ksmbd: sock_read failed: -107
> [  432.648800] ksmbd: smb_direct: Send error. status='WR flushed (5)', opcode=0
> [  432.649835] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.649870] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.649883] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.649894] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.649913] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.649966] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650023] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650077] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650138] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650151] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650173] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650182] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650196] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650205] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650219] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650229] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650238] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650256] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  432.650270] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  450.254342] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  450.254644] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  450.254672] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  450.254688] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  450.254825] ksmbd: Failed to send message: -107
> [  450.254859] ksmbd: smb_direct: disconnected
> [  450.254866] ksmbd: sock_read failed: -107
> [  450.255282] ksmbd: smb_direct: Send error. status='WR flushed (5)', opcode=0
> [  450.255342] ksmbd: smb_direct: Send error. status='WR flushed (5)', opcode=0
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> > metze
> >
> > v3: move __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT() defines before including
> >     smbdirect headers in order to avoid problems with the follow
> >     up changes for 6.19
> >
> > v2: adjust for the case where the recv completion arrives before
> >     RDMA_CM_EVENT_ESTABLISHED and improve commit messages
> >
> > Stefan Metzmacher (4):
> >   smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper
> >   smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()
> >   smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks in
> >     recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()
> >   smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks in
> >     recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()
> >
> >  fs/smb/client/smbdirect.c                  | 28 ++++++------
> >  fs/smb/common/smbdirect/smbdirect_socket.h | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c             | 40 +++++++++++++----
> >  3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Stefan Metzmacher]

Am 26.11.25 um 02:07 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 8:50 AM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
>>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
>>> by a Windows 11 client.
>>>
>>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
>>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
>>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
>>>
>>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
>>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
>>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
>>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
>>> in 6.16 final.
> Anyway, Applied this patch-set to #ksmbd-for-next-next.
> Please check the below issue.

Steve, can you move this into ksmbd-for-next?

Thanks!
metze

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Namjae Jeon]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 12:54 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>
> Am 26.11.25 um 02:07 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 8:50 AM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
> >>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
> >>> by a Windows 11 client.
> >>>
> >>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
> >>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
> >>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
> >>>
> >>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
> >>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
> >>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
> >>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
> >>> in 6.16 final.
> > Anyway, Applied this patch-set to #ksmbd-for-next-next.
> > Please check the below issue.
>
> Steve, can you move this into ksmbd-for-next?
Steve, There are more patches in ksmbd-for-next-next.
Please apply the following 6 patches in #ksmbd-for-next-next to #ksmbd-for-next.

3858665313f1 (HEAD -> ksmbd-for-next-next, origin/ksmbd-for-next-next)
ksmbd: ipc: fix use-after-free in ipc_msg_send_request
b9c7d4fe6e93 smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
checks in recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()
6c5ceb636d08 smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
checks in recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()
d02a328304e5 smb: smbdirect: introduce
SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()
340255e842d5 smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper
01cba263d1bd ksmbd: vfs: fix race on m_flags in vfs_cache

Thanks.
>
> Thanks!
> metze
>

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Stefan Metzmacher]

Am 28.11.25 um 05:53 schrieb Steve French:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 9:19 PM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 12:54 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 26.11.25 um 02:07 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 8:50 AM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
>>>>>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
>>>>>> by a Windows 11 client.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
>>>>>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
>>>>>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
>>>>>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
>>>>>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
>>>>>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
>>>>>> in 6.16 final.
>>>> Anyway, Applied this patch-set to #ksmbd-for-next-next.
>>>> Please check the below issue.
>>>
>>> Steve, can you move this into ksmbd-for-next?
>> Steve, There are more patches in ksmbd-for-next-next.
>> Please apply the following 6 patches in #ksmbd-for-next-next to
>> #ksmbd-for-next.
>>
>> 3858665313f1 (HEAD -> ksmbd-for-next-next, origin/ksmbd-for-next-next)
>> ksmbd: ipc: fix use-after-free in ipc_msg_send_request
>> b9c7d4fe6e93 smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
>> checks in recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()
>> 6c5ceb636d08 smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
>> checks in recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()
>> d02a328304e5 smb: smbdirect: introduce
>> SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()
>> 340255e842d5 smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper
>> 01cba263d1bd ksmbd: vfs: fix race on m_flags in vfs_cache

It seems these are the v2 patches, please use v3,
the difference is that the __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT
defines are moved up in order to let the patches on top work
with out modifications. I noticed the difference while
doing a rebase on ksmbd-for-next and get conflicts.

Thanks!
metze

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Namjae Jeon]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 7:17 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>
> Am 28.11.25 um 05:53 schrieb Steve French:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 9:19 PM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 12:54 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Am 26.11.25 um 02:07 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 8:50 AM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
> >>>>>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
> >>>>>> by a Windows 11 client.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
> >>>>>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
> >>>>>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
> >>>>>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
> >>>>>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
> >>>>>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
> >>>>>> in 6.16 final.
> >>>> Anyway, Applied this patch-set to #ksmbd-for-next-next.
> >>>> Please check the below issue.
> >>>
> >>> Steve, can you move this into ksmbd-for-next?
> >> Steve, There are more patches in ksmbd-for-next-next.
> >> Please apply the following 6 patches in #ksmbd-for-next-next to
> >> #ksmbd-for-next.
> >>
> >> 3858665313f1 (HEAD -> ksmbd-for-next-next, origin/ksmbd-for-next-next)
> >> ksmbd: ipc: fix use-after-free in ipc_msg_send_request
> >> b9c7d4fe6e93 smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
> >> checks in recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()
> >> 6c5ceb636d08 smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
> >> checks in recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()
> >> d02a328304e5 smb: smbdirect: introduce
> >> SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()
> >> 340255e842d5 smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper
> >> 01cba263d1bd ksmbd: vfs: fix race on m_flags in vfs_cache
>
> It seems these are the v2 patches, please use v3,
> the difference is that the __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT
> defines are moved up in order to let the patches on top work
> with out modifications. I noticed the difference while
> doing a rebase on ksmbd-for-next and get conflicts.
Right, Sorry for missing v3 patches.

Steve, Please apply updated 4 patches in ksmbd-for-next-next to ksmbd-for-next.

fc86cca6087f (HEAD -> ksmbd-for-next-next, origin/ksmbd-for-next-next)
smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks in
recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()
111b7cb1b7f6 smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
checks in recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()
12059ee95a5b smb: smbdirect: introduce
SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()
3658d5ac7908 smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper

Thanks.
>
> Thanks!
> metze
>
>

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Stefan Metzmacher]

Am 28.11.25 um 13:11 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 7:17 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>
>> Am 28.11.25 um 05:53 schrieb Steve French:
>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 9:19 PM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 12:54 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 26.11.25 um 02:07 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 8:50 AM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
>>>>>>>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
>>>>>>>> by a Windows 11 client.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
>>>>>>>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
>>>>>>>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
>>>>>>>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
>>>>>>>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
>>>>>>>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
>>>>>>>> in 6.16 final.
>>>>>> Anyway, Applied this patch-set to #ksmbd-for-next-next.
>>>>>> Please check the below issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve, can you move this into ksmbd-for-next?
>>>> Steve, There are more patches in ksmbd-for-next-next.
>>>> Please apply the following 6 patches in #ksmbd-for-next-next to
>>>> #ksmbd-for-next.
>>>>
>>>> 3858665313f1 (HEAD -> ksmbd-for-next-next, origin/ksmbd-for-next-next)
>>>> ksmbd: ipc: fix use-after-free in ipc_msg_send_request
>>>> b9c7d4fe6e93 smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
>>>> checks in recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()
>>>> 6c5ceb636d08 smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
>>>> checks in recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()
>>>> d02a328304e5 smb: smbdirect: introduce
>>>> SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()
>>>> 340255e842d5 smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper
>>>> 01cba263d1bd ksmbd: vfs: fix race on m_flags in vfs_cache
>>
>> It seems these are the v2 patches, please use v3,
>> the difference is that the __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT
>> defines are moved up in order to let the patches on top work
>> with out modifications. I noticed the difference while
>> doing a rebase on ksmbd-for-next and get conflicts.
> Right, Sorry for missing v3 patches.
> 
> Steve, Please apply updated 4 patches in ksmbd-for-next-next to ksmbd-for-next.
> 
> fc86cca6087f (HEAD -> ksmbd-for-next-next, origin/ksmbd-for-next-next)
> smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks in
> recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()
> 111b7cb1b7f6 smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
> checks in recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()
> 12059ee95a5b smb: smbdirect: introduce
> SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()
> 3658d5ac7908 smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper

Given that we missed linux-next for this week anyway,
we could also add everything from my for-6.19/fs-smb-20251128-v5
branch, which is rebased on smfrench-smb3-kernel/ksmbd-for-next with
the top 3 commits replaced by the top 3 commits from
smfrench-smb3-kernel/ksmbd-for-next-next.
And has the patches from David's cifs-cleanup branch
as well as my smbdirect.ko patches.

metze

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Namjae Jeon]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 10:35 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>
> Am 28.11.25 um 13:11 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 7:17 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 28.11.25 um 05:53 schrieb Steve French:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 9:19 PM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 12:54 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 26.11.25 um 02:07 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 8:50 AM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
> >>>>>>>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
> >>>>>>>> by a Windows 11 client.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
> >>>>>>>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
> >>>>>>>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
> >>>>>>>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
> >>>>>>>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
> >>>>>>>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
> >>>>>>>> in 6.16 final.
> >>>>>> Anyway, Applied this patch-set to #ksmbd-for-next-next.
> >>>>>> Please check the below issue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Steve, can you move this into ksmbd-for-next?
> >>>> Steve, There are more patches in ksmbd-for-next-next.
> >>>> Please apply the following 6 patches in #ksmbd-for-next-next to
> >>>> #ksmbd-for-next.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3858665313f1 (HEAD -> ksmbd-for-next-next, origin/ksmbd-for-next-next)
> >>>> ksmbd: ipc: fix use-after-free in ipc_msg_send_request
> >>>> b9c7d4fe6e93 smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
> >>>> checks in recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()
> >>>> 6c5ceb636d08 smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
> >>>> checks in recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()
> >>>> d02a328304e5 smb: smbdirect: introduce
> >>>> SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()
> >>>> 340255e842d5 smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper
> >>>> 01cba263d1bd ksmbd: vfs: fix race on m_flags in vfs_cache
> >>
> >> It seems these are the v2 patches, please use v3,
> >> the difference is that the __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT
> >> defines are moved up in order to let the patches on top work
> >> with out modifications. I noticed the difference while
> >> doing a rebase on ksmbd-for-next and get conflicts.
> > Right, Sorry for missing v3 patches.
> >
> > Steve, Please apply updated 4 patches in ksmbd-for-next-next to ksmbd-for-next.
> >
> > fc86cca6087f (HEAD -> ksmbd-for-next-next, origin/ksmbd-for-next-next)
> > smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks in
> > recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()
> > 111b7cb1b7f6 smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
> > checks in recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()
> > 12059ee95a5b smb: smbdirect: introduce
> > SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()
> > 3658d5ac7908 smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper
>
> Given that we missed linux-next for this week anyway,
> we could also add everything from my for-6.19/fs-smb-20251128-v5
> branch, which is rebased on smfrench-smb3-kernel/ksmbd-for-next with
> the top 3 commits replaced by the top 3 commits from
> smfrench-smb3-kernel/ksmbd-for-next-next.
> And has the patches from David's cifs-cleanup branch
> as well as my smbdirect.ko patches.
I have added stable tags to the top 4 patches in ksmbd-for-next-next
so they can be applied into 6.18.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v6.18
>
> metze

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Steve French]

i only see changes in two of the patches (see below) - will update
ksmbd-for-next to include the version from your branch
(for-6.19/fs-smb-20251128-v5).  Does that match what you saw?

smfrench@smfrench-ThinkPad-P16s-Gen-2:~/smb3-kernel/6-11-27-25$ diff
0004-smb-server-relax-WARN_ON_ONCE-SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_-chec.patch
~/metze/wip/197/0039-smb-server-relax-WARN_ON_ONCE-SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_-chec.patch
1c1
< From 225825bffc9602e34e26199f1c635ee59c5de2e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
---
> From 0ee0418c34b31975ffe76d8d6d93ebbe9600c532 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
3,4c3,4
< Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 09:55:56 +0100
< Subject: [PATCH 4/6] smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
---
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 15:21:53 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 039/197] smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
168,169c168,169
<  fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
<  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
---
>  fs/smb/server/transport_rdma.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
172c172
< index e2be9a496154..2d360fd08f5f 100644
---
> index e2be9a496154..4e7ab8d9314f 100644
175c175,184
< @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ static void
smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
---
> @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
>  #include <rdma/rdma_cm.h>
>  #include <rdma/rw.h>
>
> +#define __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT(__sc) smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_connection(__sc)
> +
>  #include "glob.h"
>  #include "connection.h"
>  #include "smb_common.h"
> @@ -231,6 +233,9 @@ static void smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
185c194
< @@ -241,9 +244,6 @@ static void
smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
---
> @@ -241,9 +246,6 @@ static void smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
195,199c204
< @@ -284,9 +284,13 @@ static void
smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
<  smb_direct_disconnect_wake_up_all(sc);
<  }
<
< +#define __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT(__sc)
smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_connection(__sc)
---
> @@ -287,6 +289,9 @@ static void smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
209c214
< @@ -296,9 +300,6 @@ smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_connection(struct
smbdirect_socket *sc)
---
> @@ -296,9 +301,6 @@ smb_direct_disconnect_rdma_connection(struct smbdirect_socket *sc)
219c224
< @@ -639,7 +640,18 @@ static void recv_done(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_wc *wc)
---
> @@ -639,7 +641,18 @@ static void recv_done(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_wc *wc)
239c244
< @@ -1725,7 +1737,18 @@ static int smb_direct_cm_handler(struct
rdma_cm_id *cm_id,
---
> @@ -1725,7 +1738,18 @@ static int smb_direct_cm_handler(struct rdma_cm_id *cm_id,
smfrench@smfrench-ThinkPad-P16s-Gen-2:~/smb3-kernel/6-11-27-25$ diff
0005-smb-client-relax-WARN_ON_ONCE-SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_-chec.patch
~/metze/wip/197/0040-smb-client-relax-WARN_ON_ONCE-SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_-chec.patch
1c1
< From 76e8c8c28af17cf66e79beea48278dd5b5ed5d52 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
---
> From 1e5535ff36f83e8cd664fc6d9d318b482a0ff9d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
3,4c3,4
< Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 09:55:57 +0100
< Subject: [PATCH 5/6] smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
---
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 15:21:54 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH 040/197] smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
46c46
< index c6c428c2e08d..9ee8d1048284 100644
---
> index c6c428c2e08d..788a0670c4a8 100644
49c49,57
< @@ -186,6 +186,9 @@ static void smbd_disconnect_rdma_work(struct
work_struct *work)
---
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/highmem.h>
>  #include <linux/folio_queue.h>
> +#define __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT(__sc) smbd_disconnect_rdma_connection(__sc)
>  #include "../common/smbdirect/smbdirect_pdu.h"
>  #include "smbdirect.h"
>  #include "cifs_debug.h"
> @@ -186,6 +187,9 @@ static void smbd_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
59c67
< @@ -197,9 +200,6 @@ static void smbd_disconnect_rdma_work(struct
work_struct *work)
---
> @@ -197,9 +201,6 @@ static void smbd_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
69,71c77
< @@ -240,8 +240,12 @@ static void smbd_disconnect_rdma_work(struct
work_struct *work)
<  smbd_disconnect_wake_up_all(sc);
<  }
---
> @@ -242,6 +243,9 @@ static void smbd_disconnect_rdma_work(struct work_struct *work)
73d78
< +#define __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT(__sc)
smbd_disconnect_rdma_connection(__sc)

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 4:17 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>
> Am 28.11.25 um 05:53 schrieb Steve French:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 9:19 PM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 12:54 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Am 26.11.25 um 02:07 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 8:50 AM Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
> >>>>>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
> >>>>>> by a Windows 11 client.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
> >>>>>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
> >>>>>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
> >>>>>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
> >>>>>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
> >>>>>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
> >>>>>> in 6.16 final.
> >>>> Anyway, Applied this patch-set to #ksmbd-for-next-next.
> >>>> Please check the below issue.
> >>>
> >>> Steve, can you move this into ksmbd-for-next?
> >> Steve, There are more patches in ksmbd-for-next-next.
> >> Please apply the following 6 patches in #ksmbd-for-next-next to
> >> #ksmbd-for-next.
> >>
> >> 3858665313f1 (HEAD -> ksmbd-for-next-next, origin/ksmbd-for-next-next)
> >> ksmbd: ipc: fix use-after-free in ipc_msg_send_request
> >> b9c7d4fe6e93 smb: client: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
> >> checks in recv_done() and smbd_conn_upcall()
> >> 6c5ceb636d08 smb: server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*)
> >> checks in recv_done() and smb_direct_cm_handler()
> >> d02a328304e5 smb: smbdirect: introduce
> >> SMBDIRECT_CHECK_STATUS_{WARN,DISCONNECT}()
> >> 340255e842d5 smb: smbdirect: introduce SMBDIRECT_DEBUG_ERR_PTR() helper
> >> 01cba263d1bd ksmbd: vfs: fix race on m_flags in vfs_cache
>
> It seems these are the v2 patches, please use v3,
> the difference is that the __SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_DISCONNECT
> defines are moved up in order to let the patches on top work
> with out modifications. I noticed the difference while
> doing a rebase on ksmbd-for-next and get conflicts.
>
> Thanks!
> metze
>


-- 
Thanks,

Steve

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Stefan Metzmacher]

Am 26.11.25 um 00:50 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
>> by a Windows 11 client.
>>
>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
>>
>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
>> in 6.16 final.
> First, the warning message has been improved. Thanks.
> However, when copying a 6-7GB file on a Windows client, the following
> error occurs. These error messages did not occur when testing with the
> older ksmbd rdma(https://github.com/namjaejeon/ksmbd).

With transport_rdma.* from restored from 6.17?

metze

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Namjae Jeon]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 4:16 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>
> Am 26.11.25 um 00:50 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
> >> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
> >> by a Windows 11 client.
> >>
> >> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
> >> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
> >> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
> >>
> >> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
> >> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
> >> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
> >> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
> >> in 6.16 final.
> > First, the warning message has been improved. Thanks.
> > However, when copying a 6-7GB file on a Windows client, the following
> > error occurs. These error messages did not occur when testing with the
> > older ksmbd rdma(https://github.com/namjaejeon/ksmbd).
>
> With transport_rdma.* from restored from 6.17?
I just tested it and this issue does not occur on ksmbd rdma of the 6.17 kernel.
>
> metze

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Stefan Metzmacher]

Am 26.11.25 um 16:17 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 4:16 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>
>> Am 26.11.25 um 00:50 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
>>>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
>>>> by a Windows 11 client.
>>>>
>>>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
>>>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
>>>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
>>>>
>>>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
>>>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
>>>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
>>>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
>>>> in 6.16 final.
>>> First, the warning message has been improved. Thanks.
>>> However, when copying a 6-7GB file on a Windows client, the following
>>> error occurs. These error messages did not occur when testing with the
>>> older ksmbd rdma(https://github.com/namjaejeon/ksmbd).
>>
>> With transport_rdma.* from restored from 6.17?
> I just tested it and this issue does not occur on ksmbd rdma of the 6.17 kernel.

6.17 or just transport_rdma.* from 6.17, but the rest from 6.18?

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Stefan Metzmacher]

Am 26.11.25 um 16:18 schrieb Stefan Metzmacher via samba-technical:
> Am 26.11.25 um 16:17 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 4:16 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 26.11.25 um 00:50 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
>>>>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
>>>>> by a Windows 11 client.
>>>>>
>>>>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
>>>>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
>>>>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
>>>>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
>>>>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
>>>>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
>>>>> in 6.16 final.
>>>> First, the warning message has been improved. Thanks.
>>>> However, when copying a 6-7GB file on a Windows client, the following
>>>> error occurs. These error messages did not occur when testing with the
>>>> older ksmbd rdma(https://github.com/namjaejeon/ksmbd).
>>>
>>> With transport_rdma.* from restored from 6.17?
>> I just tested it and this issue does not occur on ksmbd rdma of the 6.17 kernel.
> 
> 6.17 or just transport_rdma.* from 6.17, but the rest from 6.18?
> 

Can you also test with 6.17 + fad988a2158d743da7971884b93482a73735b25e
Maybe that changed things in order to let RDMA READs fail or cause a
disconnect.

Otherwise I'd suggest to test the following commits in order
to find where the problem was introduced:
177368b9924314bde7d2ea6dc93de0d9ba728b61

After this it gets more tricky.

metze

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Namjae Jeon]

On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 1:03 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>
> Am 26.11.25 um 16:18 schrieb Stefan Metzmacher via samba-technical:
> > Am 26.11.25 um 16:17 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 4:16 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Am 26.11.25 um 00:50 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
> >>>>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
> >>>>> by a Windows 11 client.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
> >>>>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
> >>>>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
> >>>>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
> >>>>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
> >>>>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
> >>>>> in 6.16 final.
> >>>> First, the warning message has been improved. Thanks.
> >>>> However, when copying a 6-7GB file on a Windows client, the following
> >>>> error occurs. These error messages did not occur when testing with the
> >>>> older ksmbd rdma(https://github.com/namjaejeon/ksmbd).
> >>>
> >>> With transport_rdma.* from restored from 6.17?
> >> I just tested it and this issue does not occur on ksmbd rdma of the 6.17 kernel.
> >
> > 6.17 or just transport_rdma.* from 6.17, but the rest from 6.18?
> >
>
> Can you also test with 6.17 + fad988a2158d743da7971884b93482a73735b25e
> Maybe that changed things in order to let RDMA READs fail or cause a
> disconnect.
The kernel version I tested was 6.17.9 and this patch was already applied.
>
> Otherwise I'd suggest to test the following commits in order
> to find where the problem was introduced:
> 177368b9924314bde7d2ea6dc93de0d9ba728b61
I don't have time to do this right now due to other work.
Did you test it with a Windows client and can't find this issue?
>
> After this it gets more tricky.
>
> metze
>
>
>

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Stefan Metzmacher]

Am 27.11.25 um 00:10 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 1:03 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>
>> Am 26.11.25 um 16:18 schrieb Stefan Metzmacher via samba-technical:
>>> Am 26.11.25 um 16:17 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 4:16 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 26.11.25 um 00:50 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
>>>>>>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
>>>>>>> by a Windows 11 client.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
>>>>>>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
>>>>>>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
>>>>>>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
>>>>>>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
>>>>>>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
>>>>>>> in 6.16 final.
>>>>>> First, the warning message has been improved. Thanks.
>>>>>> However, when copying a 6-7GB file on a Windows client, the following
>>>>>> error occurs. These error messages did not occur when testing with the
>>>>>> older ksmbd rdma(https://github.com/namjaejeon/ksmbd).
>>>>>
>>>>> With transport_rdma.* from restored from 6.17?
>>>> I just tested it and this issue does not occur on ksmbd rdma of the 6.17 kernel.
>>>
>>> 6.17 or just transport_rdma.* from 6.17, but the rest from 6.18?
>>>
>>
>> Can you also test with 6.17 + fad988a2158d743da7971884b93482a73735b25e
>> Maybe that changed things in order to let RDMA READs fail or cause a
>> disconnect.
> The kernel version I tested was 6.17.9 and this patch was already applied.

Ah, good it also has:
smb: server: let smb_direct_flush_send_list() invalidate a remote key first

>> Otherwise I'd suggest to test the following commits in order
>> to find where the problem was introduced:
>> 177368b9924314bde7d2ea6dc93de0d9ba728b61
> I don't have time to do this right now due to other work.
> Did you test it with a Windows client and can't find this issue?

I can only reproduce the problem this patchset is fixing,
(recv completion before getting the ESTABLISHED callback).

I tested with an Intel-E810-CQDA2 card in RoCEv2 mode
and a Windows 2025 server (acting as client against ksmbd).

And I can only reproduce the problem with the recv completion
before the ESTABLISHED event. So this patchset is not only
used for setups with a connectx-7, btw were you testing with infiniband or rocev2?

Otherwise copying a 2G and 5G file to and from the share works
without problems.

I used this to verify that rdma offload was used:

root@rdmatest04l0:~# cat ksmbd-rdma-xmit.bt
kprobe:smb_direct_rdma_xmit {
         printf("%s pid=%d %s\n", comm, pid, func)
}
root@rdmatest04l0:~# bpftrace ksmbd-rdma-xmit.bt

And it printed a lot of kworker/4:1 pid=6162 smb_direct_rdma_xmit lines...

 From the logs you send it seems the client terminated the tcp and rdma connections,
do you see something in the clients event log?

metze

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Stefan Metzmacher]

Am 27.11.25 um 16:45 schrieb Stefan Metzmacher via samba-technical:
> Am 27.11.25 um 00:10 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 1:03 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 26.11.25 um 16:18 schrieb Stefan Metzmacher via samba-technical:
>>>> Am 26.11.25 um 16:17 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 4:16 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 26.11.25 um 00:50 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
>>>>>>>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
>>>>>>>> by a Windows 11 client.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
>>>>>>>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
>>>>>>>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
>>>>>>>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
>>>>>>>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
>>>>>>>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
>>>>>>>> in 6.16 final.
>>>>>>> First, the warning message has been improved. Thanks.
>>>>>>> However, when copying a 6-7GB file on a Windows client, the following
>>>>>>> error occurs. These error messages did not occur when testing with the
>>>>>>> older ksmbd rdma(https://github.com/namjaejeon/ksmbd).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With transport_rdma.* from restored from 6.17?
>>>>> I just tested it and this issue does not occur on ksmbd rdma of the 6.17 kernel.
>>>>
>>>> 6.17 or just transport_rdma.* from 6.17, but the rest from 6.18?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you also test with 6.17 + fad988a2158d743da7971884b93482a73735b25e
>>> Maybe that changed things in order to let RDMA READs fail or cause a
>>> disconnect.
>> The kernel version I tested was 6.17.9 and this patch was already applied.
> 
> Ah, good it also has:
> smb: server: let smb_direct_flush_send_list() invalidate a remote key first
> 
>>> Otherwise I'd suggest to test the following commits in order
>>> to find where the problem was introduced:
>>> 177368b9924314bde7d2ea6dc93de0d9ba728b61
>> I don't have time to do this right now due to other work.
>> Did you test it with a Windows client and can't find this issue?
> 
> I can only reproduce the problem this patchset is fixing,
> (recv completion before getting the ESTABLISHED callback).
> 
> I tested with an Intel-E810-CQDA2 card in RoCEv2 mode
> and a Windows 2025 server (acting as client against ksmbd).
> 
> And I can only reproduce the problem with the recv completion
> before the ESTABLISHED event. So this patchset is not only
> used for setups with a connectx-7, btw were you testing with infiniband or rocev2?
> 
> Otherwise copying a 2G and 5G file to and from the share works
> without problems.

I also tested with my latest smbdirect.ko patchset
in the for-6.19/fs-smb-20251125-v4 branch, also without problems.

Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] smb: smbdirect/client/server: relax WARN_ON_ONCE(SMBDIRECT_SOCKET_*) checks

[Namjae Jeon]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 12:50 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
>
> Am 27.11.25 um 16:45 schrieb Stefan Metzmacher via samba-technical:
> > Am 27.11.25 um 00:10 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> >> On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 1:03 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Am 26.11.25 um 16:18 schrieb Stefan Metzmacher via samba-technical:
> >>>> Am 26.11.25 um 16:17 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 4:16 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 26.11.25 um 00:50 schrieb Namjae Jeon:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> here are some small cleanups for a problem Nanjae reported,
> >>>>>>>> where two WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->status != ...) checks where triggered
> >>>>>>>> by a Windows 11 client.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The patches should relax the checks if an error happened before,
> >>>>>>>> they are intended for 6.18 final, as far as I can see the
> >>>>>>>> problem was introduced during the 6.18 cycle only.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Given that v1 of this patchset produced a very useful WARN_ONCE()
> >>>>>>>> message, I'd really propose to keep this for 6.18, also for the
> >>>>>>>> client where the actual problem may not exists, but if they
> >>>>>>>> exist, it will be useful to have the more useful messages
> >>>>>>>> in 6.16 final.
> >>>>>>> First, the warning message has been improved. Thanks.
> >>>>>>> However, when copying a 6-7GB file on a Windows client, the following
> >>>>>>> error occurs. These error messages did not occur when testing with the
> >>>>>>> older ksmbd rdma(https://github.com/namjaejeon/ksmbd).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> With transport_rdma.* from restored from 6.17?
> >>>>> I just tested it and this issue does not occur on ksmbd rdma of the 6.17 kernel.
> >>>>
> >>>> 6.17 or just transport_rdma.* from 6.17, but the rest from 6.18?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Can you also test with 6.17 + fad988a2158d743da7971884b93482a73735b25e
> >>> Maybe that changed things in order to let RDMA READs fail or cause a
> >>> disconnect.
> >> The kernel version I tested was 6.17.9 and this patch was already applied.
> >
> > Ah, good it also has:
> > smb: server: let smb_direct_flush_send_list() invalidate a remote key first
> >
> >>> Otherwise I'd suggest to test the following commits in order
> >>> to find where the problem was introduced:
> >>> 177368b9924314bde7d2ea6dc93de0d9ba728b61
> >> I don't have time to do this right now due to other work.
> >> Did you test it with a Windows client and can't find this issue?
> >
> > I can only reproduce the problem this patchset is fixing,
> > (recv completion before getting the ESTABLISHED callback).
> >
> > I tested with an Intel-E810-CQDA2 card in RoCEv2 mode
> > and a Windows 2025 server (acting as client against ksmbd).
> >
> > And I can only reproduce the problem with the recv completion
> > before the ESTABLISHED event. So this patchset is not only
> > used for setups with a connectx-7, btw were you testing with infiniband or rocev2?
> >
> > Otherwise copying a 2G and 5G file to and from the share works
> > without problems.
>
> I also tested with my latest smbdirect.ko patchset
> in the for-6.19/fs-smb-20251125-v4 branch, also without problems.
I will test your latest smbdirect.ko patchset with my windows client
and share the result with you.
Thanks.
>