public inbox for linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Calum Mackay <calum.mackay@oracle.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
Cc: Calum Mackay <calum.mackay@oracle.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC] pynfs: add courteous server tests
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 22:04:05 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47d31c15-7467-6abb-9e62-96ffca1c6ec0@oracle.com> (raw)


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2013 bytes --]

hi Bruce,

At Chuck's suggestion, I've added an initial PyNFS test to aid work on a 
courteous server. A simple test, along the lines you indicated, that 
locks a file, waits twice the lease period, and tries to unlock:

OK -> PASS (courteous server)
BADSESSION -> WARNING (discourteous server)


Before sending my patch, Chuck asked me to add the second test you 
suggested:

	- A second test creates a new client, acquires a file lock, and
	  waits two lease periods.  Then creates a second client, which
	  attempts to acquire the lock.  The second client should
	  succeed.



This doesn't seem to differentiate between these three cases:

1. a discourteous server, which invalidates the client 1 state, and 
frees all client 1's locks, upon lease expiry, then allows client 2 to 
lock the file. The above test spec would result in a PASS for a 
discourteous server, which doesn't seem right.

2. a broad-grained courteous server, which invalidates the client 1 
state, and frees all client 1's locks, because of conflicting access 
from client 2 (after client 1's lease expiry), who is then granted the 
lock. A PASS here would be correct.

3. a fine-grained courteous server, which persists the session, but 
revokes that particular client 1 lock, because of conflicting access 
from client 2 (after client 1's lease expiry), who is granted the lock. 
A PASS here would be correct.

Or am I misreading your suggestion?


If I've read it right, the test could differentiate between cases 2) and 
3), by having client 1 try to unlock, after client 2 successfully locks, 
where client 1 will see either BADSESSION (case 2) or SOME_STATE_REVOKED 
/ EXPIRED (case 3). But we don't need to differentiate cases 2) and 3), 
since a PASS would be correct in either case.

However that won't differentiate between cases 1) and 2), where client 1 
will see BADSESSION in each case. Yet case 1) ought to result in a 
WARNING, and case 2) in a PASS?


cheers,
calum.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

             reply	other threads:[~2021-02-16 22:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-16 22:04 Calum Mackay [this message]
2021-02-16 22:47 ` [RFC] pynfs: add courteous server tests 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=47d31c15-7467-6abb-9e62-96ffca1c6ec0@oracle.com \
    --to=calum.mackay@oracle.com \
    --cc=bfields@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.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