[PATCH 0/7] lockd: dlm: async lock request changes

[PATCH 0/7] lockd: dlm: async lock request changes

[Alexander Aring]

Hi,

I sent this as a PATCH now and drop the RFC. I got some review back from
Jeff Layton and hope I was successful to follow it. There are still
issues with lockd and asynchronous lock request but it will at least not
directly crash when somebody is using nfs on top of GFS2. The issues are
related to cancellation of locks/lockd decides to drop nlm_block for
some reasons while pending request is happening.

I did not change more documentation about the asynchronous lock request
functionality to not confuse users. In my opinion there should be more
documentation about what you SHOULD NOT do with this API. Otherwise I
think the documentation is still correct.

I will send a follow up patch to fsdevel to change all users using
IS_SETLKW() to use FL_SLEEP to determine if it's blocking or non-blocking
and send it to fsdevel as it was recommended. This will just be a grep
and replace patch and look what happens. 

- Alex

changes since RFC:

- drop the pending callback flag but introduce "lockd: don't call
  vfs_lock_file() for pending requests", see patch why I need it.
- drop per nlm_block callback mutex
- change async lock request documentation
- use always FL_SLEEP to determine if it's blocking vs non-blocking in
  DLM

Alexander Aring (7):
  lockd: introduce safe async lock op
  lockd: don't call vfs_lock_file() for pending requests
  lockd: fix race in async lock request handling
  lockd: add doc to enable EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK
  dlm: use fl_owner from lockd
  dlm: use FL_SLEEP to determine blocking vs non-blocking
  dlm: implement EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK

 fs/dlm/plock.c           | 20 +++++---------------
 fs/gfs2/export.c         |  1 +
 fs/lockd/svclock.c       | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 fs/locks.c               | 12 +++++++-----
 fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c      | 13 ++++++++++---
 fs/ocfs2/export.c        |  1 +
 include/linux/exportfs.h |  8 ++++++++
 7 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Alexander Aring]

This patch reverts mostly commit 40595cdc93ed ("nfs: block notification
on fs with its own ->lock") and introduces an EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK
export flag to signal that the "own ->lock" implementation supports
async lock requests. The only main user is DLM that is used by GFS2 and
OCFS2 filesystem. Those implement their own lock() implementation and
return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED as return value. Since commit 40595cdc93ed
("nfs: block notification on fs with its own ->lock") the DLM
implementation were never updated. This patch should prepare for DLM
to set the EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK export flag and update the DLM
plock implementation regarding to it.

Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
---
 fs/lockd/svclock.c       |  5 ++---
 fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c      | 13 ++++++++++---
 include/linux/exportfs.h |  8 ++++++++
 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
index c43ccdf28ed9..6e3b230e8317 100644
--- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
+++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
@@ -470,9 +470,7 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
 	    struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_lock *lock, int wait,
 	    struct nlm_cookie *cookie, int reclaim)
 {
-#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG)
 	struct inode		*inode = nlmsvc_file_inode(file);
-#endif
 	struct nlm_block	*block = NULL;
 	int			error;
 	int			mode;
@@ -486,7 +484,8 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
 				(long long)lock->fl.fl_end,
 				wait);
 
-	if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock) {
+	if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
+					       nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op)) {
 		async_block = wait;
 		wait = 0;
 	}
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
index 3aefbad4cc09..14ca06424ff1 100644
--- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
@@ -7430,6 +7430,7 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
 	struct nfsd4_blocked_lock *nbl = NULL;
 	struct file_lock *file_lock = NULL;
 	struct file_lock *conflock = NULL;
+	struct super_block *sb;
 	__be32 status = 0;
 	int lkflg;
 	int err;
@@ -7451,6 +7452,7 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
 		dprintk("NFSD: nfsd4_lock: permission denied!\n");
 		return status;
 	}
+	sb = cstate->current_fh.fh_dentry->d_sb;
 
 	if (lock->lk_is_new) {
 		if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate))
@@ -7502,7 +7504,9 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
 	fp = lock_stp->st_stid.sc_file;
 	switch (lock->lk_type) {
 		case NFS4_READW_LT:
-			if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate))
+			if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate) ||
+			    export_op_support_safe_async_lock(sb->s_export_op,
+							      nf->nf_file->f_op))
 				fl_flags |= FL_SLEEP;
 			fallthrough;
 		case NFS4_READ_LT:
@@ -7514,7 +7518,9 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
 			fl_type = F_RDLCK;
 			break;
 		case NFS4_WRITEW_LT:
-			if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate))
+			if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate) ||
+			    export_op_support_safe_async_lock(sb->s_export_op,
+							      nf->nf_file->f_op))
 				fl_flags |= FL_SLEEP;
 			fallthrough;
 		case NFS4_WRITE_LT:
@@ -7542,7 +7548,8 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
 	 * for file locks), so don't attempt blocking lock notifications
 	 * on those filesystems:
 	 */
-	if (nf->nf_file->f_op->lock)
+	if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(sb->s_export_op,
+					       nf->nf_file->f_op))
 		fl_flags &= ~FL_SLEEP;
 
 	nbl = find_or_allocate_block(lock_sop, &fp->fi_fhandle, nn);
diff --git a/include/linux/exportfs.h b/include/linux/exportfs.h
index 11fbd0ee1370..10358a93cdc1 100644
--- a/include/linux/exportfs.h
+++ b/include/linux/exportfs.h
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 #define LINUX_EXPORTFS_H 1
 
 #include <linux/types.h>
+#include <linux/fs.h>
 
 struct dentry;
 struct iattr;
@@ -224,9 +225,16 @@ struct export_operations {
 						  atomic attribute updates
 						*/
 #define EXPORT_OP_FLUSH_ON_CLOSE	(0x20) /* fs flushes file data on close */
+#define EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK	(0x40) /* fs can do async lock request */
 	unsigned long	flags;
 };
 
+static inline bool export_op_support_safe_async_lock(const struct export_operations *export_ops,
+						     const struct file_operations *f_op)
+{
+	return (export_ops->flags & EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK) || !f_op->lock;
+}
+
 extern int exportfs_encode_inode_fh(struct inode *inode, struct fid *fid,
 				    int *max_len, struct inode *parent,
 				    int flags);
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Chuck Lever]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 05:33:46PM -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> This patch reverts mostly commit 40595cdc93ed ("nfs: block notification
> on fs with its own ->lock") and introduces an EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK
> export flag to signal that the "own ->lock" implementation supports
> async lock requests. The only main user is DLM that is used by GFS2 and
> OCFS2 filesystem. Those implement their own lock() implementation and
> return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED as return value. Since commit 40595cdc93ed
> ("nfs: block notification on fs with its own ->lock") the DLM
> implementation were never updated. This patch should prepare for DLM
> to set the EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK export flag and update the DLM
> plock implementation regarding to it.
> 
> Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/lockd/svclock.c       |  5 ++---
>  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c      | 13 ++++++++++---
>  include/linux/exportfs.h |  8 ++++++++
>  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

I'm starting to look at these. Just so you know, it's too late for
inclusion in v6.6, but I think we can get these into shape for v6.7.

More below.


> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> index c43ccdf28ed9..6e3b230e8317 100644
> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> @@ -470,9 +470,7 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  	    struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_lock *lock, int wait,
>  	    struct nlm_cookie *cookie, int reclaim)
>  {
> -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG)
>  	struct inode		*inode = nlmsvc_file_inode(file);
> -#endif
>  	struct nlm_block	*block = NULL;
>  	int			error;
>  	int			mode;
> @@ -486,7 +484,8 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  				(long long)lock->fl.fl_end,
>  				wait);
>  
> -	if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock) {
> +	if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> +					       nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op)) {
>  		async_block = wait;
>  		wait = 0;
>  	}
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> index 3aefbad4cc09..14ca06424ff1 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> @@ -7430,6 +7430,7 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  	struct nfsd4_blocked_lock *nbl = NULL;
>  	struct file_lock *file_lock = NULL;
>  	struct file_lock *conflock = NULL;
> +	struct super_block *sb;
>  	__be32 status = 0;
>  	int lkflg;
>  	int err;
> @@ -7451,6 +7452,7 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  		dprintk("NFSD: nfsd4_lock: permission denied!\n");
>  		return status;
>  	}
> +	sb = cstate->current_fh.fh_dentry->d_sb;
>  
>  	if (lock->lk_is_new) {
>  		if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate))
> @@ -7502,7 +7504,9 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  	fp = lock_stp->st_stid.sc_file;
>  	switch (lock->lk_type) {
>  		case NFS4_READW_LT:
> -			if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate))
> +			if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate) ||
> +			    export_op_support_safe_async_lock(sb->s_export_op,
> +							      nf->nf_file->f_op))
>  				fl_flags |= FL_SLEEP;
>  			fallthrough;
>  		case NFS4_READ_LT:
> @@ -7514,7 +7518,9 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  			fl_type = F_RDLCK;
>  			break;
>  		case NFS4_WRITEW_LT:
> -			if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate))
> +			if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate) ||
> +			    export_op_support_safe_async_lock(sb->s_export_op,
> +							      nf->nf_file->f_op))
>  				fl_flags |= FL_SLEEP;
>  			fallthrough;
>  		case NFS4_WRITE_LT:
> @@ -7542,7 +7548,8 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  	 * for file locks), so don't attempt blocking lock notifications
>  	 * on those filesystems:
>  	 */
> -	if (nf->nf_file->f_op->lock)
> +	if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(sb->s_export_op,
> +					       nf->nf_file->f_op))
>  		fl_flags &= ~FL_SLEEP;
>  
>  	nbl = find_or_allocate_block(lock_sop, &fp->fi_fhandle, nn);
> diff --git a/include/linux/exportfs.h b/include/linux/exportfs.h
> index 11fbd0ee1370..10358a93cdc1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/exportfs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/exportfs.h
> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>  #define LINUX_EXPORTFS_H 1
>  
>  #include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/fs.h>
>  
>  struct dentry;
>  struct iattr;
> @@ -224,9 +225,16 @@ struct export_operations {
>  						  atomic attribute updates
>  						*/
>  #define EXPORT_OP_FLUSH_ON_CLOSE	(0x20) /* fs flushes file data on close */
> +#define EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK	(0x40) /* fs can do async lock request */

We haven't been good about this recently, but the addition of new
EXPORT_OP flags need to be accompanied by updates to
Documentation/filesystems/nfs/exporting.rst.

I will see about adding documentation for other recent flags, but
please include an update to exporting.rst with this patch.

I'm not sure we need _SAFE_ in the flag name. Would
EXPORT_OP_ASYNC_LOCK be OK with you?


>  	unsigned long	flags;
>  };
>  
> +static inline bool export_op_support_safe_async_lock(const struct export_operations *export_ops,
> +						     const struct file_operations *f_op)
> +{
> +	return (export_ops->flags & EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK) || !f_op->lock;
> +}
> +

I'd like some cosmetic changes to this API, since this seems to be
the first utility function for checking EXPORT_OP flags.

- The function name is unwieldy. How about exportfs_lock_op_is_async() ?

- Break up the long lines. It's OK with me if the return value type
  is left on a different line than the function name and parameters.

- This function is globally visible, so a kdoc comment is needed.

- The f_op->lock check is common to all the call sites, but it is
  not at all related to the export AFAICT. Can it be removed from
  this inline function?


>  extern int exportfs_encode_inode_fh(struct inode *inode, struct fid *fid,
>  				    int *max_len, struct inode *parent,
>  				    int flags);
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

-- 
Chuck Lever

Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Alexander Aring]

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 1:21 PM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 05:33:46PM -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > This patch reverts mostly commit 40595cdc93ed ("nfs: block notification
> > on fs with its own ->lock") and introduces an EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK
> > export flag to signal that the "own ->lock" implementation supports
> > async lock requests. The only main user is DLM that is used by GFS2 and
> > OCFS2 filesystem. Those implement their own lock() implementation and
> > return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED as return value. Since commit 40595cdc93ed
> > ("nfs: block notification on fs with its own ->lock") the DLM
> > implementation were never updated. This patch should prepare for DLM
> > to set the EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK export flag and update the DLM
> > plock implementation regarding to it.
> >
> > Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/lockd/svclock.c       |  5 ++---
> >  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c      | 13 ++++++++++---
> >  include/linux/exportfs.h |  8 ++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> I'm starting to look at these. Just so you know, it's too late for
> inclusion in v6.6, but I think we can get these into shape for v6.7.
>

ok. I base my work on [0], is this correct?

> More below.
>
>
> > diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > index c43ccdf28ed9..6e3b230e8317 100644
> > --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > @@ -470,9 +470,7 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> >           struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_lock *lock, int wait,
> >           struct nlm_cookie *cookie, int reclaim)
> >  {
> > -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG)
> >       struct inode            *inode = nlmsvc_file_inode(file);
> > -#endif
> >       struct nlm_block        *block = NULL;
> >       int                     error;
> >       int                     mode;
> > @@ -486,7 +484,8 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> >                               (long long)lock->fl.fl_end,
> >                               wait);
> >
> > -     if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock) {
> > +     if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> > +                                            nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op)) {
> >               async_block = wait;
> >               wait = 0;
> >       }
> > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > index 3aefbad4cc09..14ca06424ff1 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > @@ -7430,6 +7430,7 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> >       struct nfsd4_blocked_lock *nbl = NULL;
> >       struct file_lock *file_lock = NULL;
> >       struct file_lock *conflock = NULL;
> > +     struct super_block *sb;
> >       __be32 status = 0;
> >       int lkflg;
> >       int err;
> > @@ -7451,6 +7452,7 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> >               dprintk("NFSD: nfsd4_lock: permission denied!\n");
> >               return status;
> >       }
> > +     sb = cstate->current_fh.fh_dentry->d_sb;
> >
> >       if (lock->lk_is_new) {
> >               if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate))
> > @@ -7502,7 +7504,9 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> >       fp = lock_stp->st_stid.sc_file;
> >       switch (lock->lk_type) {
> >               case NFS4_READW_LT:
> > -                     if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate))
> > +                     if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate) ||
> > +                         export_op_support_safe_async_lock(sb->s_export_op,
> > +                                                           nf->nf_file->f_op))
> >                               fl_flags |= FL_SLEEP;
> >                       fallthrough;
> >               case NFS4_READ_LT:
> > @@ -7514,7 +7518,9 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> >                       fl_type = F_RDLCK;
> >                       break;
> >               case NFS4_WRITEW_LT:
> > -                     if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate))
> > +                     if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate) ||
> > +                         export_op_support_safe_async_lock(sb->s_export_op,
> > +                                                           nf->nf_file->f_op))
> >                               fl_flags |= FL_SLEEP;
> >                       fallthrough;
> >               case NFS4_WRITE_LT:
> > @@ -7542,7 +7548,8 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> >        * for file locks), so don't attempt blocking lock notifications
> >        * on those filesystems:
> >        */
> > -     if (nf->nf_file->f_op->lock)
> > +     if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(sb->s_export_op,
> > +                                            nf->nf_file->f_op))
> >               fl_flags &= ~FL_SLEEP;
> >
> >       nbl = find_or_allocate_block(lock_sop, &fp->fi_fhandle, nn);
> > diff --git a/include/linux/exportfs.h b/include/linux/exportfs.h
> > index 11fbd0ee1370..10358a93cdc1 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/exportfs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/exportfs.h
> > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
> >  #define LINUX_EXPORTFS_H 1
> >
> >  #include <linux/types.h>
> > +#include <linux/fs.h>
> >
> >  struct dentry;
> >  struct iattr;
> > @@ -224,9 +225,16 @@ struct export_operations {
> >                                                 atomic attribute updates
> >                                               */
> >  #define EXPORT_OP_FLUSH_ON_CLOSE     (0x20) /* fs flushes file data on close */
> > +#define EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK    (0x40) /* fs can do async lock request */
>
> We haven't been good about this recently, but the addition of new
> EXPORT_OP flags need to be accompanied by updates to
> Documentation/filesystems/nfs/exporting.rst.
>

ok.

> I will see about adding documentation for other recent flags, but
> please include an update to exporting.rst with this patch.
>

ok.

> I'm not sure we need _SAFE_ in the flag name. Would
> EXPORT_OP_ASYNC_LOCK be OK with you?
>

sure, a vfs_file_lock() can return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED as well, even
without having this export flag set. How non upstream users use it, I
have no idea as it has some races.

>
> >       unsigned long   flags;
> >  };
> >
> > +static inline bool export_op_support_safe_async_lock(const struct export_operations *export_ops,
> > +                                                  const struct file_operations *f_op)
> > +{
> > +     return (export_ops->flags & EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK) || !f_op->lock;
> > +}
> > +
>
> I'd like some cosmetic changes to this API, since this seems to be
> the first utility function for checking EXPORT_OP flags.
>
> - The function name is unwieldy. How about exportfs_lock_op_is_async() ?
>

ok.

> - Break up the long lines. It's OK with me if the return value type
>   is left on a different line than the function name and parameters.
>

ok.

> - This function is globally visible, so a kdoc comment is needed.
>

ok.

> - The f_op->lock check is common to all the call sites, but it is
>   not at all related to the export AFAICT. Can it be removed from
>   this inline function?
>

This flag implies it makes only sense if the filesystem has its own
lock() implementation, if it doesn't have that I guess the core fs
functions for local file locking are being used.
I guess it can be removed, but it should not be used when there is no
own ->lock() implementation, at least not now until somebody might
update the fs core functionality for local file locking to handle
blocking lock requests asynchronously.

- Alex

[0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git/log/?h=nfsd-next

Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Chuck Lever]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 08:32:43AM -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 1:21 PM Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 05:33:46PM -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > > This patch reverts mostly commit 40595cdc93ed ("nfs: block notification
> > > on fs with its own ->lock") and introduces an EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK
> > > export flag to signal that the "own ->lock" implementation supports
> > > async lock requests. The only main user is DLM that is used by GFS2 and
> > > OCFS2 filesystem. Those implement their own lock() implementation and
> > > return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED as return value. Since commit 40595cdc93ed
> > > ("nfs: block notification on fs with its own ->lock") the DLM
> > > implementation were never updated. This patch should prepare for DLM
> > > to set the EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK export flag and update the DLM
> > > plock implementation regarding to it.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/lockd/svclock.c       |  5 ++---
> > >  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c      | 13 ++++++++++---
> > >  include/linux/exportfs.h |  8 ++++++++
> > >  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > I'm starting to look at these. Just so you know, it's too late for
> > inclusion in v6.6, but I think we can get these into shape for v6.7.
> >
> 
> ok. I base my work on [0], is this correct?

Correct.

Fyi, that is currently what is pending for v6.6. When the merge
window closes, it will jump to what will go into v6.7.


> > - The f_op->lock check is common to all the call sites, but it is
> >   not at all related to the export AFAICT. Can it be removed from
> >   this inline function?
> >
> 
> This flag implies it makes only sense if the filesystem has its own
> lock() implementation, if it doesn't have that I guess the core fs
> functions for local file locking are being used.
> I guess it can be removed, but it should not be used when there is no
> own ->lock() implementation, at least not now until somebody might
> update the fs core functionality for local file locking to handle
> blocking lock requests asynchronously.

Can that be handled with a remark in the documenting comment?


> [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cel/linux.git/log/?h=nfsd-next

-- 
Chuck Lever

Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Jeff Layton]

On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 17:33 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> This patch reverts mostly commit 40595cdc93ed ("nfs: block notification
> on fs with its own ->lock") and introduces an EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK
> export flag to signal that the "own ->lock" implementation supports
> async lock requests. The only main user is DLM that is used by GFS2 and
> OCFS2 filesystem. Those implement their own lock() implementation and
> return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED as return value. Since commit 40595cdc93ed
> ("nfs: block notification on fs with its own ->lock") the DLM
> implementation were never updated. This patch should prepare for DLM
> to set the EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK export flag and update the DLM
> plock implementation regarding to it.
> 
> Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/lockd/svclock.c       |  5 ++---
>  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c      | 13 ++++++++++---
>  include/linux/exportfs.h |  8 ++++++++
>  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> index c43ccdf28ed9..6e3b230e8317 100644
> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> @@ -470,9 +470,7 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  	    struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_lock *lock, int wait,
>  	    struct nlm_cookie *cookie, int reclaim)
>  {
> -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG)
>  	struct inode		*inode = nlmsvc_file_inode(file);
> -#endif
>  	struct nlm_block	*block = NULL;
>  	int			error;
>  	int			mode;
> @@ -486,7 +484,8 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  				(long long)lock->fl.fl_end,
>  				wait);
>  
> -	if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock) {
> +	if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> +					       nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op)) {
>  		async_block = wait;
>  		wait = 0;
>  	}
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> index 3aefbad4cc09..14ca06424ff1 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> @@ -7430,6 +7430,7 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  	struct nfsd4_blocked_lock *nbl = NULL;
>  	struct file_lock *file_lock = NULL;
>  	struct file_lock *conflock = NULL;
> +	struct super_block *sb;
>  	__be32 status = 0;
>  	int lkflg;
>  	int err;
> @@ -7451,6 +7452,7 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  		dprintk("NFSD: nfsd4_lock: permission denied!\n");
>  		return status;
>  	}
> +	sb = cstate->current_fh.fh_dentry->d_sb;
>  
>  	if (lock->lk_is_new) {
>  		if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate))
> @@ -7502,7 +7504,9 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  	fp = lock_stp->st_stid.sc_file;
>  	switch (lock->lk_type) {
>  		case NFS4_READW_LT:
> -			if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate))
> +			if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate) ||
> +			    export_op_support_safe_async_lock(sb->s_export_op,
> +							      nf->nf_file->f_op))
>  				fl_flags |= FL_SLEEP;
>  			fallthrough;
>  		case NFS4_READ_LT:
> @@ -7514,7 +7518,9 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  			fl_type = F_RDLCK;
>  			break;
>  		case NFS4_WRITEW_LT:
> -			if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate))
> +			if (nfsd4_has_session(cstate) ||
> +			    export_op_support_safe_async_lock(sb->s_export_op,
> +							      nf->nf_file->f_op))
>  				fl_flags |= FL_SLEEP;
>  			fallthrough;
>  		case NFS4_WRITE_LT:
> @@ -7542,7 +7548,8 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
>  	 * for file locks), so don't attempt blocking lock notifications
>  	 * on those filesystems:
>  	 */
> -	if (nf->nf_file->f_op->lock)
> +	if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(sb->s_export_op,
> +					       nf->nf_file->f_op))
>  		fl_flags &= ~FL_SLEEP;
>  
>  	nbl = find_or_allocate_block(lock_sop, &fp->fi_fhandle, nn);
> diff --git a/include/linux/exportfs.h b/include/linux/exportfs.h
> index 11fbd0ee1370..10358a93cdc1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/exportfs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/exportfs.h
> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
>  #define LINUX_EXPORTFS_H 1
>  
>  #include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/fs.h>
>  
>  struct dentry;
>  struct iattr;
> @@ -224,9 +225,16 @@ struct export_operations {
>  						  atomic attribute updates
>  						*/
>  #define EXPORT_OP_FLUSH_ON_CLOSE	(0x20) /* fs flushes file data on close */
> +#define EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK	(0x40) /* fs can do async lock request */
>  	unsigned long	flags;
>  };
>  
> +static inline bool export_op_support_safe_async_lock(const struct export_operations *export_ops,
> +						     const struct file_operations *f_op)
> +{
> +	return (export_ops->flags & EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK) || !f_op->lock;
> +}
> +
>  extern int exportfs_encode_inode_fh(struct inode *inode, struct fid *fid,
>  				    int *max_len, struct inode *parent,
>  				    int flags);

Conceptually, this looks fine, but I agree with Chuck's stylistic
points.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Benjamin Coddington]

On 23 Aug 2023, at 17:33, Alexander Aring wrote:

> This patch reverts mostly commit 40595cdc93ed ("nfs: block notification
> on fs with its own ->lock") and introduces an EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK
> export flag to signal that the "own ->lock" implementation supports
> async lock requests. The only main user is DLM that is used by GFS2 and
> OCFS2 filesystem. Those implement their own lock() implementation and
> return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED as return value. Since commit 40595cdc93ed
> ("nfs: block notification on fs with its own ->lock") the DLM
> implementation were never updated. This patch should prepare for DLM
> to set the EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK export flag and update the DLM
> plock implementation regarding to it.
>
> Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/lockd/svclock.c       |  5 ++---
>  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c      | 13 ++++++++++---
>  include/linux/exportfs.h |  8 ++++++++
>  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> index c43ccdf28ed9..6e3b230e8317 100644
> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> @@ -470,9 +470,7 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  	    struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_lock *lock, int wait,
>  	    struct nlm_cookie *cookie, int reclaim)
>  {
> -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG)
>  	struct inode		*inode = nlmsvc_file_inode(file);
> -#endif
>  	struct nlm_block	*block = NULL;
>  	int			error;
>  	int			mode;
> @@ -486,7 +484,8 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  				(long long)lock->fl.fl_end,
>  				wait);
>
> -	if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock) {
> +	if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> +					       nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op)) {

... but don't most filesystem use VFS' posix_lock_file(), which does the
right thing?  I think this patch has broken async lock callbacks for NLM for
all the other filesystems that just use posix_lock_file().

Maybe I'm missing something, but why was that necessary?

Ben

Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Jeff Layton]

On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 10:18 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2023, at 17:33, Alexander Aring wrote:
> 
> > This patch reverts mostly commit 40595cdc93ed ("nfs: block notification
> > on fs with its own ->lock") and introduces an EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK
> > export flag to signal that the "own ->lock" implementation supports
> > async lock requests. The only main user is DLM that is used by GFS2 and
> > OCFS2 filesystem. Those implement their own lock() implementation and
> > return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED as return value. Since commit 40595cdc93ed
> > ("nfs: block notification on fs with its own ->lock") the DLM
> > implementation were never updated. This patch should prepare for DLM
> > to set the EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK export flag and update the DLM
> > plock implementation regarding to it.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/lockd/svclock.c       |  5 ++---
> >  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c      | 13 ++++++++++---
> >  include/linux/exportfs.h |  8 ++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > index c43ccdf28ed9..6e3b230e8317 100644
> > --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > @@ -470,9 +470,7 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> >  	    struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_lock *lock, int wait,
> >  	    struct nlm_cookie *cookie, int reclaim)
> >  {
> > -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG)
> >  	struct inode		*inode = nlmsvc_file_inode(file);
> > -#endif
> >  	struct nlm_block	*block = NULL;
> >  	int			error;
> >  	int			mode;
> > @@ -486,7 +484,8 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> >  				(long long)lock->fl.fl_end,
> >  				wait);
> > 
> > -	if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock) {
> > +	if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> > +					       nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op)) {
> 
> ... but don't most filesystem use VFS' posix_lock_file(), which does the
> right thing?  I think this patch has broken async lock callbacks for NLM for
> all the other filesystems that just use posix_lock_file().
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but why was that necessary?
> 

Good catch. Yeah, I think that probably should have been an &&
condition. IOW:

	if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock &&
            !export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,

Alex, thoughts?
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Benjamin Coddington]

On 10 Sep 2024, at 11:45, Jeff Layton wrote:

> On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 10:18 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
>> On 23 Aug 2023, at 17:33, Alexander Aring wrote:
>>
>>> This patch reverts mostly commit 40595cdc93ed ("nfs: block notification
>>> on fs with its own ->lock") and introduces an EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK
>>> export flag to signal that the "own ->lock" implementation supports
>>> async lock requests. The only main user is DLM that is used by GFS2 and
>>> OCFS2 filesystem. Those implement their own lock() implementation and
>>> return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED as return value. Since commit 40595cdc93ed
>>> ("nfs: block notification on fs with its own ->lock") the DLM
>>> implementation were never updated. This patch should prepare for DLM
>>> to set the EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK export flag and update the DLM
>>> plock implementation regarding to it.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/lockd/svclock.c       |  5 ++---
>>>  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c      | 13 ++++++++++---
>>>  include/linux/exportfs.h |  8 ++++++++
>>>  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
>>> index c43ccdf28ed9..6e3b230e8317 100644
>>> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
>>> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
>>> @@ -470,9 +470,7 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>>>  	    struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_lock *lock, int wait,
>>>  	    struct nlm_cookie *cookie, int reclaim)
>>>  {
>>> -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG)
>>>  	struct inode		*inode = nlmsvc_file_inode(file);
>>> -#endif
>>>  	struct nlm_block	*block = NULL;
>>>  	int			error;
>>>  	int			mode;
>>> @@ -486,7 +484,8 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>>>  				(long long)lock->fl.fl_end,
>>>  				wait);
>>>
>>> -	if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock) {
>>> +	if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
>>> +					       nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op)) {
>>
>> ... but don't most filesystem use VFS' posix_lock_file(), which does the
>> right thing?  I think this patch has broken async lock callbacks for NLM for
>> all the other filesystems that just use posix_lock_file().
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but why was that necessary?
>>
>
> Good catch. Yeah, I think that probably should have been an &&
> condition. IOW:
>
> 	if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock &&
>             !export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
>

Ah Jeff, thanks for confirming - there's been a bunch of changes in there that
made me uncertain.  I can send a patch for this, I'd like to rename
export_op_support_safe_async_lock to something like fs_can_defer_lock
(suggestions) and put the test in there.

Ben

Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Alexander Aring]

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 12:56 PM Benjamin Coddington
<bcodding@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 10 Sep 2024, at 11:45, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 10:18 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> >> On 23 Aug 2023, at 17:33, Alexander Aring wrote:
> >>
> >>> This patch reverts mostly commit 40595cdc93ed ("nfs: block notification
> >>> on fs with its own ->lock") and introduces an EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK
> >>> export flag to signal that the "own ->lock" implementation supports
> >>> async lock requests. The only main user is DLM that is used by GFS2 and
> >>> OCFS2 filesystem. Those implement their own lock() implementation and
> >>> return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED as return value. Since commit 40595cdc93ed
> >>> ("nfs: block notification on fs with its own ->lock") the DLM
> >>> implementation were never updated. This patch should prepare for DLM
> >>> to set the EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK export flag and update the DLM
> >>> plock implementation regarding to it.
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  fs/lockd/svclock.c       |  5 ++---
> >>>  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c      | 13 ++++++++++---
> >>>  include/linux/exportfs.h |  8 ++++++++
> >>>  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> >>> index c43ccdf28ed9..6e3b230e8317 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> >>> @@ -470,9 +470,7 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> >>>         struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_lock *lock, int wait,
> >>>         struct nlm_cookie *cookie, int reclaim)
> >>>  {
> >>> -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG)
> >>>     struct inode            *inode = nlmsvc_file_inode(file);
> >>> -#endif
> >>>     struct nlm_block        *block = NULL;
> >>>     int                     error;
> >>>     int                     mode;
> >>> @@ -486,7 +484,8 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> >>>                             (long long)lock->fl.fl_end,
> >>>                             wait);
> >>>
> >>> -   if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock) {
> >>> +   if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> >>> +                                          nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op)) {
> >>
> >> ... but don't most filesystem use VFS' posix_lock_file(), which does the
> >> right thing?  I think this patch has broken async lock callbacks for NLM for
> >> all the other filesystems that just use posix_lock_file().
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm missing something, but why was that necessary?
> >>
> >
> > Good catch. Yeah, I think that probably should have been an &&
> > condition. IOW:
> >
> >       if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock &&
> >             !export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> >
>
> Ah Jeff, thanks for confirming - there's been a bunch of changes in there that
> made me uncertain.  I can send a patch for this, I'd like to rename
> export_op_support_safe_async_lock to something like fs_can_defer_lock
> (suggestions) and put the test in there.

go ahead with the name change.

About the uncertainty the other changes, except this one mentioned
above here in the reply, was a revert of commit 40595cdc93ed ("block
notification on fs with its own ->lock") that had removed a similar
flag to in kind of a reverse logic.
The flag means something that the commit message says "... filesystems
with "good" ->lock methods to support blocking lock notifications.".

- Alex

Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Jeff Layton]

On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 12:56 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2024, at 11:45, Jeff Layton wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 10:18 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> > > On 23 Aug 2023, at 17:33, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > > 
> > > > This patch reverts mostly commit 40595cdc93ed ("nfs: block notification
> > > > on fs with its own ->lock") and introduces an EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK
> > > > export flag to signal that the "own ->lock" implementation supports
> > > > async lock requests. The only main user is DLM that is used by GFS2 and
> > > > OCFS2 filesystem. Those implement their own lock() implementation and
> > > > return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED as return value. Since commit 40595cdc93ed
> > > > ("nfs: block notification on fs with its own ->lock") the DLM
> > > > implementation were never updated. This patch should prepare for DLM
> > > > to set the EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK export flag and update the DLM
> > > > plock implementation regarding to it.
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/lockd/svclock.c       |  5 ++---
> > > >  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c      | 13 ++++++++++---
> > > >  include/linux/exportfs.h |  8 ++++++++
> > > >  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > > > index c43ccdf28ed9..6e3b230e8317 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > > > @@ -470,9 +470,7 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> > > >  	    struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_lock *lock, int wait,
> > > >  	    struct nlm_cookie *cookie, int reclaim)
> > > >  {
> > > > -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG)
> > > >  	struct inode		*inode = nlmsvc_file_inode(file);
> > > > -#endif
> > > >  	struct nlm_block	*block = NULL;
> > > >  	int			error;
> > > >  	int			mode;
> > > > @@ -486,7 +484,8 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> > > >  				(long long)lock->fl.fl_end,
> > > >  				wait);
> > > > 
> > > > -	if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock) {
> > > > +	if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> > > > +					       nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op)) {
> > > 
> > > ... but don't most filesystem use VFS' posix_lock_file(), which does the
> > > right thing?  I think this patch has broken async lock callbacks for NLM for
> > > all the other filesystems that just use posix_lock_file().
> > > 
> > > Maybe I'm missing something, but why was that necessary?
> > > 
> > 
> > Good catch. Yeah, I think that probably should have been an &&
> > condition. IOW:
> > 
> > 	if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock &&
> >             !export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> > 
> 
> Ah Jeff, thanks for confirming - there's been a bunch of changes in there that
> made me uncertain.  I can send a patch for this, I'd like to rename
> export_op_support_safe_async_lock to something like fs_can_defer_lock
> (suggestions) and put the test in there.

Actually, I take it back. The only callers that set
export_op_support_safe_async_lock have ->lock as non-NULL, so that
won't change anything, in practice.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Benjamin Coddington]

On 11 Sep 2024, at 9:24, Jeff Layton wrote:

> On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 12:56 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
>> On 10 Sep 2024, at 11:45, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>
>>> Good catch. Yeah, I think that probably should have been an &&
>>> condition. IOW:
>>>
>>> 	if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock &&
>>>             !export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
>>>
>>
>> Ah Jeff, thanks for confirming - there's been a bunch of changes in there that
>> made me uncertain.  I can send a patch for this, I'd like to rename
>> export_op_support_safe_async_lock to something like fs_can_defer_lock
>> (suggestions) and put the test in there.
>
> Actually, I take it back. The only callers that set
> export_op_support_safe_async_lock have ->lock as non-NULL, so that
> won't change anything, in practice.

*nod*

In trying to conjoin the export flag test with the f_op->lock test, I'm just
making a huge mess of layering violations.  The changes for NFSD are terrible.

Seems like we want an FOP_ flag for this, I might ask for one.  Wouldn't
other users like FUSE be interested?

Ben

Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Alexander Aring]

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 11:45 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 10:18 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> > On 23 Aug 2023, at 17:33, Alexander Aring wrote:
> >
> > > This patch reverts mostly commit 40595cdc93ed ("nfs: block notification
> > > on fs with its own ->lock") and introduces an EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK
> > > export flag to signal that the "own ->lock" implementation supports
> > > async lock requests. The only main user is DLM that is used by GFS2 and
> > > OCFS2 filesystem. Those implement their own lock() implementation and
> > > return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED as return value. Since commit 40595cdc93ed
> > > ("nfs: block notification on fs with its own ->lock") the DLM
> > > implementation were never updated. This patch should prepare for DLM
> > > to set the EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK export flag and update the DLM
> > > plock implementation regarding to it.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/lockd/svclock.c       |  5 ++---
> > >  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c      | 13 ++++++++++---
> > >  include/linux/exportfs.h |  8 ++++++++
> > >  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > > index c43ccdf28ed9..6e3b230e8317 100644
> > > --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > > +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > > @@ -470,9 +470,7 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> > >         struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_lock *lock, int wait,
> > >         struct nlm_cookie *cookie, int reclaim)
> > >  {
> > > -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SUNRPC_DEBUG)
> > >     struct inode            *inode = nlmsvc_file_inode(file);
> > > -#endif
> > >     struct nlm_block        *block = NULL;
> > >     int                     error;
> > >     int                     mode;
> > > @@ -486,7 +484,8 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> > >                             (long long)lock->fl.fl_end,
> > >                             wait);
> > >
> > > -   if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock) {
> > > +   if (!export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> > > +                                          nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op)) {
> >
> > ... but don't most filesystem use VFS' posix_lock_file(), which does the
> > right thing?  I think this patch has broken async lock callbacks for NLM for
> > all the other filesystems that just use posix_lock_file().
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but why was that necessary?
> >
>
> Good catch. Yeah, I think that probably should have been an &&
> condition. IOW:
>
>         if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock &&
>             !export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
>
> Alex, thoughts?

The question is here if we ever want that posix_lock_file() receives a
posix lock that has flc_flags and the FL_SLEEP set. As mentioned, may
"posix_lock_file()" can just deal with it and will not block?

This patch indeed broke it as posix_lock_file() will never see a lock
request with FL_SLEEP set, but I remembered that nfs is only polling
locks and "probably" never set FL_SLEEP?

Thanks.

- Alex

[PATCH 2/7] lockd: don't call vfs_lock_file() for pending requests

[Alexander Aring]

This patch returns nlm_lck_blocked in nlmsvc_lock() when an asynchronous
lock request is pending. During testing I ran into the case with the
side-effects that lockd is waiting for only one lm_grant() callback
because it's already part of the nlm_blocked list. If another
asynchronous for the same nlm_block is triggered two lm_grant()
callbacks will occur but lockd was only waiting for one.

To avoid any change of existing users this handling will only being made
when export_op_support_safe_async_lock() returns true.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
---
 fs/lockd/svclock.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
index 6e3b230e8317..aa4174fbaf5b 100644
--- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
+++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
@@ -531,6 +531,23 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
 		goto out;
 	}
 
+	spin_lock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
+	/*
+	 * If this is a lock request for an already pending
+	 * lock request we return nlm_lck_blocked without calling
+	 * vfs_lock_file() again. Otherwise we have two pending
+	 * requests on the underlaying ->lock() implementation but
+	 * only one nlm_block to being granted by lm_grant().
+	 */
+	if (export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
+					      nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op) &&
+	    !list_empty(&block->b_list)) {
+		spin_unlock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
+		ret = nlm_lck_blocked;
+		goto out;
+	}
+	spin_unlock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
+
 	if (!wait)
 		lock->fl.fl_flags &= ~FL_SLEEP;
 	mode = lock_to_openmode(&lock->fl);
@@ -543,13 +560,6 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
 			ret = nlm_granted;
 			goto out;
 		case -EAGAIN:
-			/*
-			 * If this is a blocking request for an
-			 * already pending lock request then we need
-			 * to put it back on lockd's block list
-			 */
-			if (wait)
-				break;
 			ret = async_block ? nlm_lck_blocked : nlm_lck_denied;
 			goto out;
 		case FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED:
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH 2/7] lockd: don't call vfs_lock_file() for pending requests

[Jeff Layton]

On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 17:33 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> This patch returns nlm_lck_blocked in nlmsvc_lock() when an asynchronous
> lock request is pending. During testing I ran into the case with the
> side-effects that lockd is waiting for only one lm_grant() callback
> because it's already part of the nlm_blocked list. If another
> asynchronous for the same nlm_block is triggered two lm_grant()
> callbacks will occur but lockd was only waiting for one.
> 
> To avoid any change of existing users this handling will only being made
> when export_op_support_safe_async_lock() returns true.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/lockd/svclock.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> index 6e3b230e8317..aa4174fbaf5b 100644
> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> @@ -531,6 +531,23 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  		goto out;
>  	}
>  
> +	spin_lock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
> +	/*
> +	 * If this is a lock request for an already pending
> +	 * lock request we return nlm_lck_blocked without calling
> +	 * vfs_lock_file() again. Otherwise we have two pending
> +	 * requests on the underlaying ->lock() implementation but
> +	 * only one nlm_block to being granted by lm_grant().
> +	 */
> +	if (export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> +					      nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op) &&
> +	    !list_empty(&block->b_list)) {
> +		spin_unlock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
> +		ret = nlm_lck_blocked;
> +		goto out;
> +	}

Looks reasonable. The block->b_list check is subtle, but the comment
helps.

> +	spin_unlock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
> +
>  	if (!wait)
>  		lock->fl.fl_flags &= ~FL_SLEEP;
>  	mode = lock_to_openmode(&lock->fl);
> @@ -543,13 +560,6 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  			ret = nlm_granted;
>  			goto out;
>  		case -EAGAIN:
> -			/*
> -			 * If this is a blocking request for an
> -			 * already pending lock request then we need
> -			 * to put it back on lockd's block list
> -			 */
> -			if (wait)
> -				break;
>  			ret = async_block ? nlm_lck_blocked : nlm_lck_denied;
>  			goto out;
>  		case FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED:


Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

Re: [PATCH 2/7] lockd: don't call vfs_lock_file() for pending requests

[Alexander Aring]

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 2:10 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 17:33 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > This patch returns nlm_lck_blocked in nlmsvc_lock() when an asynchronous
> > lock request is pending. During testing I ran into the case with the
> > side-effects that lockd is waiting for only one lm_grant() callback
> > because it's already part of the nlm_blocked list. If another
> > asynchronous for the same nlm_block is triggered two lm_grant()
> > callbacks will occur but lockd was only waiting for one.
> >
> > To avoid any change of existing users this handling will only being made
> > when export_op_support_safe_async_lock() returns true.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/lockd/svclock.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > index 6e3b230e8317..aa4174fbaf5b 100644
> > --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> > @@ -531,6 +531,23 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> >               goto out;
> >       }
> >
> > +     spin_lock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
> > +     /*
> > +      * If this is a lock request for an already pending
> > +      * lock request we return nlm_lck_blocked without calling
> > +      * vfs_lock_file() again. Otherwise we have two pending
> > +      * requests on the underlaying ->lock() implementation but
> > +      * only one nlm_block to being granted by lm_grant().
> > +      */
> > +     if (export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> > +                                           nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op) &&
> > +         !list_empty(&block->b_list)) {
> > +             spin_unlock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
> > +             ret = nlm_lck_blocked;
> > +             goto out;
> > +     }
>
> Looks reasonable. The block->b_list check is subtle, but the comment
> helps.

thanks. To be honest, I am "a little bit" worried (I am thinking of
this scenario) that we might have a problem here with multiple
identically lock requests being granted at the same time. In such
cases the most fields of struct file_lock are mostly the same and
nlm_compare_locks() checks exactly on those fields. I am concerned
this corner case could cause problems, but it is a very rare case and
it makes totally no sense that an application is doing such a request.

I am currently trying to get an xfstest for this upstream.

- Alex

[PATCH 3/7] lockd: fix race in async lock request handling

[Alexander Aring]

This patch fixes a race in async lock request handling between adding
the relevant struct nlm_block to nlm_blocked list after the request was
sent by vfs_lock_file() and nlmsvc_grant_deferred() does a lookup of the
nlm_block in the nlm_blocked list. It could be that the async request is
completed before the nlm_block was added to the list. This would end
in a -ENOENT and a kernel log message of "lockd: grant for unknown
block".

To solve this issue we add the nlm_block before the vfs_lock_file() call
to be sure it has been added when a possible nlmsvc_grant_deferred() is
called. If the vfs_lock_file() results in an case when it wouldn't be
added to nlm_blocked list, the nlm_block struct will be removed from
this list again.

The introducing of the new B_PENDING_CALLBACK nlm_block flag will handle
async lock requests on a pending lock requests as a retry on the caller
level to hit the -EAGAIN case.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
---
 fs/lockd/svclock.c | 11 ++++++++---
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
index aa4174fbaf5b..3b158446203b 100644
--- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
+++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
@@ -546,6 +546,9 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
 		ret = nlm_lck_blocked;
 		goto out;
 	}
+
+	/* Append to list of blocked */
+	nlmsvc_insert_block_locked(block, NLM_NEVER);
 	spin_unlock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
 
 	if (!wait)
@@ -557,9 +560,12 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
 	dprintk("lockd: vfs_lock_file returned %d\n", error);
 	switch (error) {
 		case 0:
+			nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
 			ret = nlm_granted;
 			goto out;
 		case -EAGAIN:
+			if (!wait)
+				nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
 			ret = async_block ? nlm_lck_blocked : nlm_lck_denied;
 			goto out;
 		case FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED:
@@ -570,17 +576,16 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
 			ret = nlmsvc_defer_lock_rqst(rqstp, block);
 			goto out;
 		case -EDEADLK:
+			nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
 			ret = nlm_deadlock;
 			goto out;
 		default:			/* includes ENOLCK */
+			nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
 			ret = nlm_lck_denied_nolocks;
 			goto out;
 	}
 
 	ret = nlm_lck_blocked;
-
-	/* Append to list of blocked */
-	nlmsvc_insert_block(block, NLM_NEVER);
 out:
 	mutex_unlock(&file->f_mutex);
 	nlmsvc_release_block(block);
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH 3/7] lockd: fix race in async lock request handling

[Chuck Lever]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 05:33:48PM -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> This patch fixes a race in async lock request handling between adding
> the relevant struct nlm_block to nlm_blocked list after the request was
> sent by vfs_lock_file() and nlmsvc_grant_deferred() does a lookup of the
> nlm_block in the nlm_blocked list. It could be that the async request is
> completed before the nlm_block was added to the list. This would end
> in a -ENOENT and a kernel log message of "lockd: grant for unknown
> block".
> 
> To solve this issue we add the nlm_block before the vfs_lock_file() call
> to be sure it has been added when a possible nlmsvc_grant_deferred() is
> called. If the vfs_lock_file() results in an case when it wouldn't be
> added to nlm_blocked list, the nlm_block struct will be removed from
> this list again.
> 
> The introducing of the new B_PENDING_CALLBACK nlm_block flag will handle
> async lock requests on a pending lock requests as a retry on the caller
> level to hit the -EAGAIN case.

This last paragraph might be obsolete? I don't see a
B_PENDING_CALLBACK flag in the kernel or in this patch series.


> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/lockd/svclock.c | 11 ++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> index aa4174fbaf5b..3b158446203b 100644
> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> @@ -546,6 +546,9 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  		ret = nlm_lck_blocked;
>  		goto out;
>  	}
> +
> +	/* Append to list of blocked */
> +	nlmsvc_insert_block_locked(block, NLM_NEVER);
>  	spin_unlock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
>  
>  	if (!wait)
> @@ -557,9 +560,12 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  	dprintk("lockd: vfs_lock_file returned %d\n", error);
>  	switch (error) {
>  		case 0:
> +			nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
>  			ret = nlm_granted;
>  			goto out;
>  		case -EAGAIN:
> +			if (!wait)
> +				nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
>  			ret = async_block ? nlm_lck_blocked : nlm_lck_denied;
>  			goto out;
>  		case FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED:
> @@ -570,17 +576,16 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  			ret = nlmsvc_defer_lock_rqst(rqstp, block);
>  			goto out;
>  		case -EDEADLK:
> +			nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
>  			ret = nlm_deadlock;
>  			goto out;
>  		default:			/* includes ENOLCK */
> +			nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
>  			ret = nlm_lck_denied_nolocks;
>  			goto out;
>  	}
>  
>  	ret = nlm_lck_blocked;
> -
> -	/* Append to list of blocked */
> -	nlmsvc_insert_block(block, NLM_NEVER);
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&file->f_mutex);
>  	nlmsvc_release_block(block);
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

-- 
Chuck Lever

Re: [PATCH 3/7] lockd: fix race in async lock request handling

[Jeff Layton]

On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 17:33 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> This patch fixes a race in async lock request handling between adding
> the relevant struct nlm_block to nlm_blocked list after the request was
> sent by vfs_lock_file() and nlmsvc_grant_deferred() does a lookup of the
> nlm_block in the nlm_blocked list. It could be that the async request is
> completed before the nlm_block was added to the list. This would end
> in a -ENOENT and a kernel log message of "lockd: grant for unknown
> block".
> 
> To solve this issue we add the nlm_block before the vfs_lock_file() call
> to be sure it has been added when a possible nlmsvc_grant_deferred() is
> called. If the vfs_lock_file() results in an case when it wouldn't be
> added to nlm_blocked list, the nlm_block struct will be removed from
> this list again.
> 
> The introducing of the new B_PENDING_CALLBACK nlm_block flag will handle
> async lock requests on a pending lock requests as a retry on the caller
> level to hit the -EAGAIN case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/lockd/svclock.c | 11 ++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> index aa4174fbaf5b..3b158446203b 100644
> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> @@ -546,6 +546,9 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  		ret = nlm_lck_blocked;
>  		goto out;
>  	}
> +
> +	/* Append to list of blocked */
> +	nlmsvc_insert_block_locked(block, NLM_NEVER);
>  	spin_unlock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
>  
>  	if (!wait)
> @@ -557,9 +560,12 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  	dprintk("lockd: vfs_lock_file returned %d\n", error);
>  	switch (error) {
>  		case 0:
> +			nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
>  			ret = nlm_granted;
>  			goto out;
>  		case -EAGAIN:
> +			if (!wait)
> +				nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
>  			ret = async_block ? nlm_lck_blocked : nlm_lck_denied;
>  			goto out;
>  		case FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED:
> @@ -570,17 +576,16 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
>  			ret = nlmsvc_defer_lock_rqst(rqstp, block);
>  			goto out;
>  		case -EDEADLK:
> +			nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
>  			ret = nlm_deadlock;
>  			goto out;
>  		default:			/* includes ENOLCK */
> +			nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
>  			ret = nlm_lck_denied_nolocks;
>  			goto out;
>  	}
>  
>  	ret = nlm_lck_blocked;
> -
> -	/* Append to list of blocked */
> -	nlmsvc_insert_block(block, NLM_NEVER);
>  out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&file->f_mutex);
>  	nlmsvc_release_block(block);

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

[PATCH 4/7] lockd: add doc to enable EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK

[Alexander Aring]

This patch adds a note to enable EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK for
asynchronous lock request handling.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
---
 fs/locks.c | 12 +++++++-----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index df8b26a42524..edee02d1ca93 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -2255,11 +2255,13 @@ int fcntl_getlk(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, struct flock *flock)
  * To avoid blocking kernel daemons, such as lockd, that need to acquire POSIX
  * locks, the ->lock() interface may return asynchronously, before the lock has
  * been granted or denied by the underlying filesystem, if (and only if)
- * lm_grant is set. Callers expecting ->lock() to return asynchronously
- * will only use F_SETLK, not F_SETLKW; they will set FL_SLEEP if (and only if)
- * the request is for a blocking lock. When ->lock() does return asynchronously,
- * it must return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED, and call ->lm_grant() when the lock
- * request completes.
+ * lm_grant is set. Additionally EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK in export_operations
+ * flags need to be set.
+ *
+ * Callers expecting ->lock() to return asynchronously will only use F_SETLK,
+ * not F_SETLKW; they will set FL_SLEEP if (and only if) the request is for a
+ * blocking lock. When ->lock() does return asynchronously, it must return
+ * FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED, and call ->lm_grant() when the lock request completes.
  * If the request is for non-blocking lock the file system should return
  * FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED then try to get the lock and call the callback routine
  * with the result. If the request timed out the callback routine will return a
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH 4/7] lockd: add doc to enable EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK

[Jeff Layton]

On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 17:33 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> This patch adds a note to enable EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK for
> asynchronous lock request handling.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/locks.c | 12 +++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index df8b26a42524..edee02d1ca93 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -2255,11 +2255,13 @@ int fcntl_getlk(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, struct flock *flock)
>   * To avoid blocking kernel daemons, such as lockd, that need to acquire POSIX
>   * locks, the ->lock() interface may return asynchronously, before the lock has
>   * been granted or denied by the underlying filesystem, if (and only if)
> - * lm_grant is set. Callers expecting ->lock() to return asynchronously
> - * will only use F_SETLK, not F_SETLKW; they will set FL_SLEEP if (and only if)
> - * the request is for a blocking lock. When ->lock() does return asynchronously,
> - * it must return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED, and call ->lm_grant() when the lock
> - * request completes.
> + * lm_grant is set. Additionally EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK in export_operations
> + * flags need to be set.
> + *
> + * Callers expecting ->lock() to return asynchronously will only use F_SETLK,
> + * not F_SETLKW; they will set FL_SLEEP if (and only if) the request is for a
> + * blocking lock. When ->lock() does return asynchronously, it must return
> + * FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED, and call ->lm_grant() when the lock request completes.
>   * If the request is for non-blocking lock the file system should return
>   * FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED then try to get the lock and call the callback routine
>   * with the result. If the request timed out the callback routine will return a

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

[PATCH 5/7] dlm: use fl_owner from lockd

[Alexander Aring]

This patch is changing the fl_owner value in case of an nfs lock request
to not be the pid of lockd. Instead this patch changes it to be the
owner value that nfs is giving us.

Currently there exists proved problems with this behaviour. One nfsd
server was created to export a gfs2 filesystem mount. Two nfs clients
doing a nfs mount of this export. Those two clients should conflict each
other operating on the same nfs file.

A small test program was written:

int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
{
	struct flock fl = {
		.l_type = F_WRLCK,
		.l_whence = SEEK_SET,
		.l_start = 1L,
		.l_len = 1L,
	};
	int fd;

	fd = open("filename", O_RDWR | O_CREAT, 0700);
	printf("try to lock...\n");
	fcntl(fd, F_SETLKW, &fl);
	printf("locked!\n");
	getc(stdin);

	return 0;
}

Running on both clients at the same time and don't interrupting by
pressing any key. It will show that both clients are able to acquire the
lock which shouldn't be the case. The issue is here that the fl_owner
value is the same and the lock context of both clients should be
separated.

This patch lets lockd define how to deal with lock contexts and chose
hopefully the right fl_owner value. A test after this patch was made and
the locks conflicts each other which should be the case.

Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
---
 fs/dlm/plock.c | 18 ++++--------------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/dlm/plock.c b/fs/dlm/plock.c
index 00e1d802a81c..0094fa4004cc 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/plock.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/plock.c
@@ -145,6 +145,7 @@ int dlm_posix_lock(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 number, struct file *file,
 	op->info.number		= number;
 	op->info.start		= fl->fl_start;
 	op->info.end		= fl->fl_end;
+	op->info.owner = (__u64)(long)fl->fl_owner;
 	/* async handling */
 	if (fl->fl_lmops && fl->fl_lmops->lm_grant) {
 		op_data = kzalloc(sizeof(*op_data), GFP_NOFS);
@@ -154,9 +155,6 @@ int dlm_posix_lock(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 number, struct file *file,
 			goto out;
 		}
 
-		/* fl_owner is lockd which doesn't distinguish
-		   processes on the nfs client */
-		op->info.owner	= (__u64) fl->fl_pid;
 		op_data->callback = fl->fl_lmops->lm_grant;
 		locks_init_lock(&op_data->flc);
 		locks_copy_lock(&op_data->flc, fl);
@@ -168,8 +166,6 @@ int dlm_posix_lock(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 number, struct file *file,
 		send_op(op);
 		rv = FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED;
 		goto out;
-	} else {
-		op->info.owner	= (__u64)(long) fl->fl_owner;
 	}
 
 	send_op(op);
@@ -326,10 +322,7 @@ int dlm_posix_unlock(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 number, struct file *file,
 	op->info.number		= number;
 	op->info.start		= fl->fl_start;
 	op->info.end		= fl->fl_end;
-	if (fl->fl_lmops && fl->fl_lmops->lm_grant)
-		op->info.owner	= (__u64) fl->fl_pid;
-	else
-		op->info.owner	= (__u64)(long) fl->fl_owner;
+	op->info.owner = (__u64)(long)fl->fl_owner;
 
 	if (fl->fl_flags & FL_CLOSE) {
 		op->info.flags |= DLM_PLOCK_FL_CLOSE;
@@ -389,7 +382,7 @@ int dlm_posix_cancel(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 number, struct file *file,
 	info.number = number;
 	info.start = fl->fl_start;
 	info.end = fl->fl_end;
-	info.owner = (__u64)fl->fl_pid;
+	info.owner = (__u64)(long)fl->fl_owner;
 
 	rv = do_lock_cancel(&info);
 	switch (rv) {
@@ -450,10 +443,7 @@ int dlm_posix_get(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 number, struct file *file,
 	op->info.number		= number;
 	op->info.start		= fl->fl_start;
 	op->info.end		= fl->fl_end;
-	if (fl->fl_lmops && fl->fl_lmops->lm_grant)
-		op->info.owner	= (__u64) fl->fl_pid;
-	else
-		op->info.owner	= (__u64)(long) fl->fl_owner;
+	op->info.owner = (__u64)(long)fl->fl_owner;
 
 	send_op(op);
 	wait_event(recv_wq, (op->done != 0));
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH 6/7] dlm: use FL_SLEEP to determine blocking vs non-blocking

[Alexander Aring]

This patch uses the FL_SLEEP flag in struct file_lock to determine if
the lock request is a blocking or non-blocking request. Before dlm was
using IS_SETLKW() was being used which is not usable for lock requests
coming from lockd when EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK inside the export flags
is set.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
---
 fs/dlm/plock.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/dlm/plock.c b/fs/dlm/plock.c
index 0094fa4004cc..0c6ed5eeb840 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/plock.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/plock.c
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ int dlm_posix_lock(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 number, struct file *file,
 	op->info.optype		= DLM_PLOCK_OP_LOCK;
 	op->info.pid		= fl->fl_pid;
 	op->info.ex		= (fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK);
-	op->info.wait		= IS_SETLKW(cmd);
+	op->info.wait		= !!(fl->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP);
 	op->info.fsid		= ls->ls_global_id;
 	op->info.number		= number;
 	op->info.start		= fl->fl_start;
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH 6/7] dlm: use FL_SLEEP to determine blocking vs non-blocking

[Jeff Layton]

On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 17:33 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> This patch uses the FL_SLEEP flag in struct file_lock to determine if
> the lock request is a blocking or non-blocking request. Before dlm was
> using IS_SETLKW() was being used which is not usable for lock requests
> coming from lockd when EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK inside the export flags
> is set.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/dlm/plock.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/dlm/plock.c b/fs/dlm/plock.c
> index 0094fa4004cc..0c6ed5eeb840 100644
> --- a/fs/dlm/plock.c
> +++ b/fs/dlm/plock.c
> @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ int dlm_posix_lock(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 number, struct file *file,
>  	op->info.optype		= DLM_PLOCK_OP_LOCK;
>  	op->info.pid		= fl->fl_pid;
>  	op->info.ex		= (fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK);
> -	op->info.wait		= IS_SETLKW(cmd);
> +	op->info.wait		= !!(fl->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP);
>  	op->info.fsid		= ls->ls_global_id;
>  	op->info.number		= number;
>  	op->info.start		= fl->fl_start;

Not sure you really need the !!, but ok...

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

Re: [PATCH 6/7] dlm: use FL_SLEEP to determine blocking vs non-blocking

[Alexander Aring]

Hi,

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 2:18 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 17:33 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > This patch uses the FL_SLEEP flag in struct file_lock to determine if
> > the lock request is a blocking or non-blocking request. Before dlm was
> > using IS_SETLKW() was being used which is not usable for lock requests
> > coming from lockd when EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK inside the export flags
> > is set.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/dlm/plock.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/dlm/plock.c b/fs/dlm/plock.c
> > index 0094fa4004cc..0c6ed5eeb840 100644
> > --- a/fs/dlm/plock.c
> > +++ b/fs/dlm/plock.c
> > @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ int dlm_posix_lock(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 number, struct file *file,
> >       op->info.optype         = DLM_PLOCK_OP_LOCK;
> >       op->info.pid            = fl->fl_pid;
> >       op->info.ex             = (fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK);
> > -     op->info.wait           = IS_SETLKW(cmd);
> > +     op->info.wait           = !!(fl->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP);
> >       op->info.fsid           = ls->ls_global_id;
> >       op->info.number         = number;
> >       op->info.start          = fl->fl_start;
>
> Not sure you really need the !!, but ok...
>

The wait is a byte value and FL_SLEEP doesn't fit into it, I already
run into problems with it. I don't think somebody does a if (foo->wait
== 1) but it should be set to 1 or 0.

An alternative would be: ((fl->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP) == FL_SLEEP). I am
not sure what the coding style says here. I think it's more important
what the C standard says about !!(condition), but there are other
users of this in the Linux kernel. :-/

- Alex

Re: [PATCH 6/7] dlm: use FL_SLEEP to determine blocking vs non-blocking

[Jeff Layton]

On Wed, 2023-08-30 at 08:38 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 2:18 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 17:33 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > > This patch uses the FL_SLEEP flag in struct file_lock to determine if
> > > the lock request is a blocking or non-blocking request. Before dlm was
> > > using IS_SETLKW() was being used which is not usable for lock requests
> > > coming from lockd when EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK inside the export flags
> > > is set.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/dlm/plock.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/dlm/plock.c b/fs/dlm/plock.c
> > > index 0094fa4004cc..0c6ed5eeb840 100644
> > > --- a/fs/dlm/plock.c
> > > +++ b/fs/dlm/plock.c
> > > @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ int dlm_posix_lock(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 number, struct file *file,
> > >       op->info.optype         = DLM_PLOCK_OP_LOCK;
> > >       op->info.pid            = fl->fl_pid;
> > >       op->info.ex             = (fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK);
> > > -     op->info.wait           = IS_SETLKW(cmd);
> > > +     op->info.wait           = !!(fl->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP);
> > >       op->info.fsid           = ls->ls_global_id;
> > >       op->info.number         = number;
> > >       op->info.start          = fl->fl_start;
> > 
> > Not sure you really need the !!, but ok...
> > 
> 
> The wait is a byte value and FL_SLEEP doesn't fit into it, I already
> run into problems with it. I don't think somebody does a if (foo->wait
> == 1) but it should be set to 1 or 0.
> 

AIUI, any halfway decent compiler should take the result of the &, and
implicitly cast that properly to bool. Basically, any value other than 0
should be true.

If the compiler just blindly casts the lowest byte though, then you do
need the double-negative.

> An alternative would be: ((fl->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP) == FL_SLEEP). I am
> not sure what the coding style says here. I think it's more important
> what the C standard says about !!(condition), but there are other
> users of this in the Linux kernel. :-/

I don't care too much either way, but my understanding was that you
don't need to do the !! trick in most cases with modern compilers.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

[PATCH 7/7] dlm: implement EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK

[Alexander Aring]

This patch is activating the EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK export flag to
signal lockd that both filesystems are able to handle async lock
requests. The cluster filesystems gfs2 and ocfs2 will redirect their
lock requests to DLMs plock implementation that can handle async lock
requests.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
---
 fs/gfs2/export.c  | 1 +
 fs/ocfs2/export.c | 1 +
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/gfs2/export.c b/fs/gfs2/export.c
index cf40895233f5..36bc43b9d141 100644
--- a/fs/gfs2/export.c
+++ b/fs/gfs2/export.c
@@ -192,5 +192,6 @@ const struct export_operations gfs2_export_ops = {
 	.fh_to_parent = gfs2_fh_to_parent,
 	.get_name = gfs2_get_name,
 	.get_parent = gfs2_get_parent,
+	.flags = EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK,
 };
 
diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/export.c b/fs/ocfs2/export.c
index eaa8c80ace3c..8a1169e01dd9 100644
--- a/fs/ocfs2/export.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/export.c
@@ -280,4 +280,5 @@ const struct export_operations ocfs2_export_ops = {
 	.fh_to_dentry	= ocfs2_fh_to_dentry,
 	.fh_to_parent	= ocfs2_fh_to_parent,
 	.get_parent	= ocfs2_get_parent,
+	.flags		= EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK,
 };
-- 
2.31.1