Re: [PATCH RFC v6 2/2] nfsd: Initial implementation of NFSv4 Courteous Server

[Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 10:00:22PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying! If you are feeling industrious, it would be nice
> for this to be documented somewhere in the source code....

I did that, then noticed I was duplicating a comment I'd already written
elsewhere, so, how about the following?

--b.

From 2e3f00c5f29f033fd5db05ef713d0d9fa27d6db1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:32:21 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] nfsd: improve stateid access bitmask documentation

The use of the bitmaps is confusing.  Add a cross-reference to make it
easier to find the existing comment.  Add an updated reference with URL
to make it quicker to look up.  And a bit more editorializing about the
value of this.

Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
---
 fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 14 ++++++++++----
 fs/nfsd/state.h     |  4 ++++
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
index 0031e006f4dc..f07fe7562d4d 100644
--- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
@@ -360,11 +360,13 @@ static const struct nfsd4_callback_ops nfsd4_cb_notify_lock_ops = {
  * st_{access,deny}_bmap field of the stateid, in order to track not
  * only what share bits are currently in force, but also what
  * combinations of share bits previous opens have used.  This allows us
- * to enforce the recommendation of rfc 3530 14.2.19 that the server
- * return an error if the client attempt to downgrade to a combination
- * of share bits not explicable by closing some of its previous opens.
+ * to enforce the recommendation in
+ * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7530#section-16.19.4 that
+ * the server return an error if the client attempt to downgrade to a
+ * combination of share bits not explicable by closing some of its
+ * previous opens.
  *
- * XXX: This enforcement is actually incomplete, since we don't keep
+ * This enforcement is arguably incomplete, since we don't keep
  * track of access/deny bit combinations; so, e.g., we allow:
  *
  *	OPEN allow read, deny write
@@ -372,6 +374,10 @@ static const struct nfsd4_callback_ops nfsd4_cb_notify_lock_ops = {
  *	DOWNGRADE allow read, deny none
  *
  * which we should reject.
+ *
+ * But you could also argue that what our current code is already
+ * overkill, since it only exists to return NFS4ERR_INVAL on incorrect
+ * client behavior.
  */
 static unsigned int
 bmap_to_share_mode(unsigned long bmap)
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/state.h b/fs/nfsd/state.h
index e73bdbb1634a..6eb3c7157214 100644
--- a/fs/nfsd/state.h
+++ b/fs/nfsd/state.h
@@ -568,6 +568,10 @@ struct nfs4_ol_stateid {
 	struct list_head		st_locks;
 	struct nfs4_stateowner		*st_stateowner;
 	struct nfs4_clnt_odstate	*st_clnt_odstate;
+/*
+ * These bitmasks use 3 separate bits for READ, ALLOW, and BOTH; see the
+ * comment above bmap_to_share_mode() for explanation:
+ */
 	unsigned char			st_access_bmap;
 	unsigned char			st_deny_bmap;
 	struct nfs4_ol_stateid		*st_openstp;
-- 
2.33.1