From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] nfsd: only set file_lock.fl_lmops in nfsd4_lockt if a stateowner is found
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:58:38 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090122135838.7aa9d9f3@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090122185232.GC15279@fieldses.org>
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:52:32 -0500
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:34:51AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > nfsd4_lockt does a search for a lockstateowner when building the lock
> > struct to test. If one is found, it'll set fl_owner to it. Regardless of
> > whether that happens, it'll also set fl_lmops.
> >
> > If a lockstateowner is not found, then we'll have fl_owner set to NULL
> > and fl_lmops set pointing to nfsd_posix_mng_ops. Other parts of the
> > NFSv4 server code assume that fl_owner will point to a valid
> > nfs4_stateowner if fl_lmops is set this way.
> >
> > This behavior exposed a bug in DLM's GETLK implementation where it
> > wasn't clearing out the fields in the file_lock before filling in
> > conflicting lock info. While we were able to fix this in DLM, it
> > still seems pointless and dangerous to set the fl_lmops this way
> > when we have a NULL lockstateowner.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > index 88db7d3..07d196a 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > @@ -2867,11 +2867,13 @@ nfsd4_lockt(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> >
> > lockt->lt_stateowner = find_lockstateowner_str(inode,
> > &lockt->lt_clientid, &lockt->lt_owner);
> > - if (lockt->lt_stateowner)
> > + if (lockt->lt_stateowner) {
> > file_lock.fl_owner = (fl_owner_t)lockt->lt_stateowner;
> > + file_lock.fl_lmops = &nfsd_posix_mng_ops;
>
> So I think we just shouldn't need this second assignment at all.
>
> --b.
>
Do we even need to worry about the lockstateowner at all then? If
fl_lmops isn't set then I think the fl_owner will be basically ignored
by nfs4_set_lock_denied anyway.
> > + }
> > +
> > file_lock.fl_pid = current->tgid;
> > file_lock.fl_flags = FL_POSIX;
> > - file_lock.fl_lmops = &nfsd_posix_mng_ops;
> >
> > file_lock.fl_start = lockt->lt_offset;
> > file_lock.fl_end = last_byte_offset(lockt->lt_offset, lockt->lt_length);
> > --
> > 1.5.5.6
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NFSv4 mailing list
> > NFSv4@linux-nfs.org
> > http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-22 18:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-21 16:34 [PATCH 0/2] nfsd/dlm: fix knfsd panic when NFSv4 client does GETLK call on GFS2 (regression) Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <1232555691-29859-1-git-send-email-jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2009-01-21 16:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] dlm: initialize file_lock struct in GETLK before copying conflicting lock Jeff Layton
2009-01-21 23:42 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 2:26 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 18:32 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 18:37 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 18:05 ` [Cluster-devel] " David Teigland
2009-01-22 18:37 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <20090122133733.5d692a09-xSBYVWDuneFaJnirhKH9O4GKTjYczspe@public.gmane.org>
2009-01-22 19:03 ` David Teigland
2009-01-22 18:48 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-21 16:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] nfsd: only set file_lock.fl_lmops in nfsd4_lockt if a stateowner is found Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 18:52 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 18:58 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
[not found] ` <20090122135838.7aa9d9f3-xSBYVWDuneFaJnirhKH9O4GKTjYczspe@public.gmane.org>
2009-01-22 19:12 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 18:59 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 19:09 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <20090122140902.0cedf21b-xSBYVWDuneFaJnirhKH9O4GKTjYczspe@public.gmane.org>
2009-01-22 19:15 ` J. Bruce Fields
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-01-22 19:16 [PATCH 0/2] nfsd/dlm: fix knfsd panic when NFSv4 client does GETLK call Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 19:16 ` [PATCH 2/2] nfsd: only set file_lock.fl_lmops in nfsd4_lockt if a stateowner is found Jeff Layton
2009-01-27 22:33 ` J. Bruce Fields
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090122135838.7aa9d9f3@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com \
--to=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=cluster-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nfsv4@linux-nfs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).