public inbox for linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Rob Gardner <rob.gardner@hp.com>
Cc: tmtalpey@gmail.com,
	"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Huge race in lockd for async lock requests?
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 16:05:23 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090528200523.GE13860@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A1431B1.6080708@hp.com>

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:37:05AM -0600, Rob Gardner wrote:
> Tom Talpey wrote:
>> At 02:55 AM 5/20/2009, Rob Gardner wrote:
>>   
>>> Tom Talpey wrote:
>>>     
>>>> At 04:43 PM 5/19/2009, Rob Gardner wrote:
>>>>       
>>>>> I've got a question about lockd in conjunction with a filesystem 
>>>>> that provides its own (async) locking.
>>>>>
>>>>> After nlmsvc_lock() calls vfs_lock_file(), it seems to be that we 
>>>>> might get the async callback (nlmsvc_grant_deferred) at any time. 
>>>>> What's to stop it from arriving before we even put the block on 
>>>>> the nlm_block list? If this happens, then nlmsvc_grant_deferred() 
>>>>> will print "grant for unknown block" and then we'll wait forever 
>>>>> for a grant that will never come.
>>>>>         
>>>> Yes, there's a race but the client will retry every 30 seconds, so it won't
>>>> wait forever.
>>>>       
>>> OK, a blocking lock request will get retried in 30 seconds and work 
>>> out "ok". But a non-blocking request will get in big trouble. Let's 
>>> say the     
>>
>> A non-blocking lock doesn't request, and won't get, a callback. So I
>> don't understand...
>>
>>   
>
> What do you mean a non-blocking lock doesn't request? Remember that I'm  
> dealing with a filesystem that provides its own locking functions via  
> file->f_op->lock(). Such a filesystem might easily defer a non-blocking  
> lock request and invoke the callback later. At least I don't know of any  
> rule that says that it can't do this, and clearly the code expects this  
> possibility:
>
>              case FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED:
>                        if (wait)
>                                break;
>                        /* Filesystem lock operation is in progress
>                           Add it to the queue waiting for callback */
>                        ret = nlmsvc_defer_lock_rqst(rqstp, block);
>
>
>>> callback is invoked immediately after the vfs_lock_file call returns  
>>> FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED. At this point, the block is not on the nlm_block  
>>> list, so the callback routine will not be able to find it and mark it 
>>> as granted. Then nlmsvc_lock() will call nlmsvc_defer_lock_rqst(), 
>>> put the block on the nlm_block list, and eventually the request will 
>>> timeout and the client will get lck_denied. Meanwhile, the lock has 
>>> actually been granted, but nobody knows about it.
>>>     
>>
>> Yes, this can happen, I've seen it too. Again, it's a bug in the protocol
>> more than a bug in the clients. 
> It looks to me like a bug in the server. The server must be able to deal  
> with async filesystem callbacks happening at any time, however 
> inconvenient.

Absolutely, if that's possible then it's a server bug.

--b.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-05-28 20:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-15 14:48 Virtual IPs and blocking locks Sachin S. Prabhu
2009-05-15 16:50 ` Rob Gardner
2009-05-18 13:41   ` Sachin S. Prabhu
2009-05-18 13:46     ` Trond Myklebust
2009-05-18 13:55     ` Rob Gardner
2009-05-19 20:43       ` Huge race in lockd for async lock requests? Rob Gardner
2009-05-19 21:33         ` Tom Talpey
2009-05-20  6:55         ` Rob Gardner
2009-05-20 14:00           ` Tom Talpey
     [not found]             ` <4a140d0a.85c2f10a.53bc.0979-ATjtLOhZ0NVl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
2009-05-20 14:14               ` Tom Talpey
     [not found]                 ` <4a14106e.48c3f10a.7ce3.0e55-ATjtLOhZ0NVl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
2009-05-20 23:20                   ` Rob Gardner
2009-05-20 16:37               ` Rob Gardner
2009-05-28 20:05                 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2009-05-28 21:34                   ` Rob Gardner
2009-05-29  0:26                     ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-05-29  2:59                       ` Rob Gardner
2009-05-29 13:22                         ` Tom Talpey
     [not found]                           ` <4a1fe1c0.06045a0a.165b.5fbc-ATjtLOhZ0NVl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
2009-05-29 15:24                             ` Rob Gardner
2009-05-29 19:14                               ` 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=20090528200523.GE13860@fieldses.org \
    --to=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rob.gardner@hp.com \
    --cc=tmtalpey@gmail.com \
    /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