From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>
To: shaobingqing <shaobingqing@bwstor.com.cn>
Cc: Dr Fields James Bruce <bfields@redhat.com>,
"Miller David S." <davem@davemloft.net>,
linuxnfs <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Allow one callback request to be received from two sk_buff
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:35:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1BFACA51-087E-4945-851A-FBF0F108604C@primarydata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALrKORrZ3Kcuqc1RajQKkZcot0yiswh4VR_WuXHqfRTjn9oGQQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Jan 21, 2014, at 3:08, shaobingqing <shaobingqing@bwstor.com.cn> wrote:
> 2014/1/21 Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>:
>> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 14:59 +0800, shaobingqing wrote:
>>> In current code, there only one struct rpc_rqst is prealloced. If one
>>> callback request is received from two sk_buff, the xprt_alloc_bc_request
>>> would be execute two times with the same transport->xid. The first time
>>> xprt_alloc_bc_request will alloc one struct rpc_rqst and the TCP_RCV_COPY_DATA
>>> bit of transport->tcp_flags will not be cleared. The second time
>>> xprt_alloc_bc_request could not alloc struct rpc_rqst any more and NULL
>>> pointer will be returned, then xprt_force_disconnect occur. I think one
>>> callback request can be allowed to be received from two sk_buff.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: shaobingqing <shaobingqing@bwstor.com.cn>
>>> ---
>>> net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
>>> index ee03d35..606950d 100644
>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
>>> @@ -1271,8 +1271,13 @@ static inline int xs_tcp_read_callback(struct rpc_xprt *xprt,
>>> struct sock_xprt *transport =
>>> container_of(xprt, struct sock_xprt, xprt);
>>> struct rpc_rqst *req;
>>> + static struct rpc_rqst *req_partial;
>>> +
>>> + if (req_partial == NULL)
>>> + req = xprt_alloc_bc_request(xprt);
>>> + else if (req_partial->rq_xid == transport->tcp_xid)
>>> + req = req_partial;
>>
>> What happens here if req_partial->rq_xid != transport->tcp_xid? AFAICS,
>> req will be undefined. Either way, you cannot use a static variable for
>> storage here: that isn't re-entrant.
>
> Because metadata sever only have one slot for backchannel request,
> req_partial->rq_xid == transport->tcp_xid always happens, if the callback
> request just being splited in two sk_buffs. But req_partial->rq_xid !=
> transport->tcp_xid may also happens in some special cases, such as
> retransmission occurs?
If the server retransmits, then it is broken. The NFSv4.1 protocol does not allow it to retransmit unless the connection breaks.
> If one callback request is splited in two sk_buffs, xs_tcp_read_callback
> will be execute two times. The req_partial should be a static variable,
> because the second execution of xs_tcp_read_callback should use
> the rpc_rqst allocated for the first execution, which saves information
> copies from the first sk_buff.
No! This is a multi-threaded/process environment which can support multiple connection. It is a bug to use a static variable.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-21 15:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-20 6:59 [PATCH] SUNRPC: Allow one callback request to be received from two sk_buff shaobingqing
2014-01-20 14:27 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2014-01-20 23:17 ` Trond Myklebust
2014-01-21 10:08 ` shaobingqing
2014-01-21 15:35 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2014-01-22 23:52 ` J. Bruce Fields
2014-01-23 1:42 ` shaobingqing
2014-01-23 2:23 ` shaobingqing
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=1BFACA51-087E-4945-851A-FBF0F108604C@primarydata.com \
--to=trond.myklebust@primarydata.com \
--cc=bfields@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shaobingqing@bwstor.com.cn \
/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