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 --]
next 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